Another tricky grammar rule that frequently trips up even the most savvy writer: “too” vs. “to.” It would just be great if we could simply write “two” all the time, wouldn’t it? Alas, even math professors and accountants and other number people can’t get around this one.
Very generally speaking, “to” is used either as part of a verb (“I swear, I wanted to slap Jimmy upside the head…) or to indicate a direction, or both (“I need to go to the liquor store, NOW”). This is the “to” that we use most of the time. We use it so frequently we barely even notice it.
“Too,” on the other hand, is often abused. It has two (ha, ha…) primary uses: to indicate comparison or extreme (“I ate way too much of Grandma’s potato salad”), or to show an add-on (“I, too, think Natalie Portman is overrated”). In this second usage, “too” usually needs a comma, too (see how I did that?): “You hate Natalie Portman? Me, too!” I don’t know why it does this, but it does.
Note: a lot of sources, including your lying Spell Check, will tell you that “Me, too” doesn’t, in fact, need a comma. You know my preference. I actually think it’s simpler. After all, “Sara hates Natalie Portman, too” is universally acknowledged as correct, but “Me, too,” isn’t? Screw it. You can just about never go wrong popping a comma in front of that “too” in this usage.
To re-cap: “to” is the workhorse, whereas “too” is the one that means “also” or indicates comparison.
Next time: those darn commas...
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Quickie: Read the Polanski Petition
IndieWire has the current list of filmmakers, actors and film executives who have signed a petition demanding the immediate release of Roman Polanski. Their objection seems to be that Polanski was arrested while traveling to a film festival, and that:
"By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this. The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects."
Dude, it's a *film festival,* not a frakking U.N. summit. There's no such thing as diplomatic immunity for artists. Get a clue.
"By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this. The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects."
Dude, it's a *film festival,* not a frakking U.N. summit. There's no such thing as diplomatic immunity for artists. Get a clue.
"Chinatown" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card
I find a lot of the commentary over Roman Polanski’s arrest this weekend very disturbing. When people say or write that Polanski should be given a pass because it was a long time ago/he’s a genius/the victim wants to drop the case/she asked for it anyway, etc., I think there’s a lot going on between the lines.
(BTW, that last one’s hilarious. So, the girl is a lying whore succubus who callously lured a middle-aged man into her web and we should take everything she says with a grain of salt… Until she says she doesn’t care if Polanski ever goes to jail. Then her words are sacrosanct.)
These are the facts: Polanski pled guilty in 1977 to unlawful sex with a minor, in this case a 13-year-old girl he was photographing for Vogue. The girl said that Polanski drugged and raped her after the creepiest photo shoot ever – read the transcript of her grand jury testimony (warning: very graphic). Some have argued that the girl could’ve been coached. And sure, that’s entirely possible. But it doesn’t matter. Because even if she’d stripped naked and begged Polanski for sex, 13-year-olds can’t consent to sex – a fact which Polanski acknowledged when he pled guilty to statutory rape. (By the way, this is what she looked like in 1977.)
So, no statute of limitations, no California-is-wasting-their-time. The prosecution was over, the verdict (Polanski’s guilty plea) was in. Polanski left the U.S. for France before his sentencing. His lawyers argue that the judge was going to ignore a plea recommendation and throw the book at Polanski, so that’s why he ran. The thing is, though, that in this country we have something called “appeals.” If you think your sentence was too harsh or there was judicial misconduct in your trial, you can contest it all the way to the Supremes.
But Polanski didn’t do that. He ran away. He could’ve appealed everything about his conviction at any time, but he hasn’t. The only person Roman Polanski has to blame for the fact that this has dragged on for 32 years is Roman Polanski.
Something else I’ve been thinking about… Last week, Susan Atkins died of cancer in prison. Atkins was the Manson Family follower who held down and stabbed Polanski’s pregnant wife Sharon Tate in July 1969. In August, the week of what should’ve been Paul Polanski’s 40th birthday, Atkins asked for a compassionate release from prison so she could die at home, and was turned down.
I’ve been wondering what Roman Polanski thought about Atkins’ request. Did he say to himself, “Ah, well, it’s been 40 years, who cares? Just let her go”? Did he tell people that the State of California had better things to do, or that she wasn’t a danger to anyone? What about when Nazi Adolf Eichmann was captured in Argentina in 1960? Did Polanski think to himself, “How silly! It’s been 20 years since the Nazis murdered my family. The Israelis shouldn’t have bothered.”
In other words, are Polanski and his supporters as cavalier with his own justice as they are with Samantha Geimer’s?
(BTW, that last one’s hilarious. So, the girl is a lying whore succubus who callously lured a middle-aged man into her web and we should take everything she says with a grain of salt… Until she says she doesn’t care if Polanski ever goes to jail. Then her words are sacrosanct.)
These are the facts: Polanski pled guilty in 1977 to unlawful sex with a minor, in this case a 13-year-old girl he was photographing for Vogue. The girl said that Polanski drugged and raped her after the creepiest photo shoot ever – read the transcript of her grand jury testimony (warning: very graphic). Some have argued that the girl could’ve been coached. And sure, that’s entirely possible. But it doesn’t matter. Because even if she’d stripped naked and begged Polanski for sex, 13-year-olds can’t consent to sex – a fact which Polanski acknowledged when he pled guilty to statutory rape. (By the way, this is what she looked like in 1977.)
So, no statute of limitations, no California-is-wasting-their-time. The prosecution was over, the verdict (Polanski’s guilty plea) was in. Polanski left the U.S. for France before his sentencing. His lawyers argue that the judge was going to ignore a plea recommendation and throw the book at Polanski, so that’s why he ran. The thing is, though, that in this country we have something called “appeals.” If you think your sentence was too harsh or there was judicial misconduct in your trial, you can contest it all the way to the Supremes.
But Polanski didn’t do that. He ran away. He could’ve appealed everything about his conviction at any time, but he hasn’t. The only person Roman Polanski has to blame for the fact that this has dragged on for 32 years is Roman Polanski.
Something else I’ve been thinking about… Last week, Susan Atkins died of cancer in prison. Atkins was the Manson Family follower who held down and stabbed Polanski’s pregnant wife Sharon Tate in July 1969. In August, the week of what should’ve been Paul Polanski’s 40th birthday, Atkins asked for a compassionate release from prison so she could die at home, and was turned down.
I’ve been wondering what Roman Polanski thought about Atkins’ request. Did he say to himself, “Ah, well, it’s been 40 years, who cares? Just let her go”? Did he tell people that the State of California had better things to do, or that she wasn’t a danger to anyone? What about when Nazi Adolf Eichmann was captured in Argentina in 1960? Did Polanski think to himself, “How silly! It’s been 20 years since the Nazis murdered my family. The Israelis shouldn’t have bothered.”
In other words, are Polanski and his supporters as cavalier with his own justice as they are with Samantha Geimer’s?
Monday, September 28, 2009
I wish I could've written this
Common Roman Polanski Defenses Refuted, from the Washington City Paper. My favorite:
“'But the American justice system is fucked up.'
Granted. But if we’re going to talk about the fuck-up-edness of the U.S. legal system, surely we can find a better martyr than a famous rich guy with the best lawyers in the world who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, struck a plea deal in order to get off with the lesser charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” (or statutory rape), and then fled the country when it looked like the plea deal may not be honored? I’m all for Polanski being tried legally and fairly. Over the years, Polanski has repeatedly attempted to appeal the case—a really cool feature of the American legal process he purposefully evaded—but he refuses to appear in court.
Excuse me while I play the world’s tiniest piano, but if the American legal system is broken, the fix is not for rapists to just choose their own adventure (in this case, France)."
Go read it.
“'But the American justice system is fucked up.'
Granted. But if we’re going to talk about the fuck-up-edness of the U.S. legal system, surely we can find a better martyr than a famous rich guy with the best lawyers in the world who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, struck a plea deal in order to get off with the lesser charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” (or statutory rape), and then fled the country when it looked like the plea deal may not be honored? I’m all for Polanski being tried legally and fairly. Over the years, Polanski has repeatedly attempted to appeal the case—a really cool feature of the American legal process he purposefully evaded—but he refuses to appear in court.
Excuse me while I play the world’s tiniest piano, but if the American legal system is broken, the fix is not for rapists to just choose their own adventure (in this case, France)."
Go read it.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Science as a path to God
As luck would have it, a few days after first seeing the Cameron video, I got to the chapter in Brad Gooch’s biography of Flannery O’Connor where the devout Catholic writer discovers the work of French Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard also studied paleontology and geology and was present for the discovery of the Peking Man. He wrote extensively about science as a legitimate path to God, exploring the idea that biological evolution will eventually develop a larger human consciousness. It’s an intriguing philosophy that I really want to read more about.
The Church did not allow Teilhard to publish those thoughts during his lifetime. But I like to think we’ve – ahem – evolved a little since the early 20th Century in terms of our capability to reconcile belief and observation. That doesn’t mean that one believes one thing on Sunday mornings and another the rest of the week in the lab. I’m talking about true integration. How can you look at the cells under a microscope and not believe in a higher power?
Cameron and his group talk about college professors in the sciences as if they were the enemy. In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth. When I talk to the faculty at the college where I work, their prevailing attitude is a cross between wonder and humility.
Contrast that with the creationists who argue that Darwinian evolution can’t be accurate because otherwise bananas wouldn’t fit in human hands. It seems a little arrogant to me. Is that what the creationists’ hang-up is? If all life forms evolve to their most efficient form, then humans aren’t exceptional. And maybe they just can’t handle that idea. I really don’t understand that. If you believe that an all-powerful God created our world, why can’t you conceive that He also allowed life to adapt to the changing conditions of that world?
Creationists seem to have given up on science texts. Maybe they should read up on theologians like Teilhard instead.
By the way, Kirk, I pray in public every day, and I'm not in prison yet.
*Ok, first of all, natural selection was never intended to be a social theory, so shut up about frakking Hitler. Second, if we’re going to start rejecting philosophies just because Hitler was interested in them, keep in mind that he was a vegetarian who hated smoking and dug blondes. Just sayin’.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Wednesday Word Nerd: It
Remember what we said a few weeks ago about breaking down contractions like “you’re” and “they’re” to decide whether or not they should be used? That’s exactly what you’re going to need to do when deciding whether to write “its” or “it’s.”
“It’s,” of course, is the contraction of “it is.” On the other hand, “its” with no apostrophe is the word you use when you want to show that something belongs to a noun that isn’t a hers, a his or a theirs. When I see something like “The dog confused it’s food bowl and litter box,” I want to hit something. (And possibly vomit, but that’s neither here nor there.)
As with other contractions, stop to think for a moment about what you’re really saying. “It’s” = “it is,” always, forever and ever, amen. If you don’t mean “it is,” then don’t write “it’s.” Ever. When you pause to think, you will easily see that “The dog did whatever to it is food bowl” makes absolutely no sense. And you will write, correctly, “its.” (And you will make me very happy!)
Next time: too vs. to
“It’s,” of course, is the contraction of “it is.” On the other hand, “its” with no apostrophe is the word you use when you want to show that something belongs to a noun that isn’t a hers, a his or a theirs. When I see something like “The dog confused it’s food bowl and litter box,” I want to hit something. (And possibly vomit, but that’s neither here nor there.)
As with other contractions, stop to think for a moment about what you’re really saying. “It’s” = “it is,” always, forever and ever, amen. If you don’t mean “it is,” then don’t write “it’s.” Ever. When you pause to think, you will easily see that “The dog did whatever to it is food bowl” makes absolutely no sense. And you will write, correctly, “its.” (And you will make me very happy!)
Next time: too vs. to
Monday, September 21, 2009
How long does it take for Chris Wallace to completely lose my respect?
About three and a half minutes, actually.
I've always thought of Wallace kindly. The host of Fox News Sunday doesn't come across to me as partisan. Some of my left-wing friends like to pick on him because he's on Fox, but c'mon, the guy's no Glenn Beck.
Which is why Wallace's appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" last week was so disappointing. Wallace and O'Reilly have their panties in a bunch because President Obama snubbed them in his mega-interview Sunday, in which the president gave the exact same interview to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and Univision. It's disappointing because I would expect an objective journalist to at least mention the fact that Fox refused to air Obama's Sept. 9 health care speech, rather than chalking up the snub to "They don't like us WAAAAAAAHHH!"
Newsflash, Fox: when the president addresses a joint session of Congress, actual news organizations air it live. If your network chooses to go with whatever reality show it airs on a typical Wednesday instead, then it's signaling that it isn't much of a news organization. Therefore, you get bumped in favor of Univision. Wallace refers to the Reagan White House. I'm trying to imagine how Reagan press secretary Larry Speakes (quote: "You don't tell us how to stage the news and we don't tell you how to cover it.") would've reacted to a network refusing to cover a presidential address. My mental image involves a lot of tears outside a locked White House gate.
And in general, it's bad form to whine about someone else's whininess.
I've always thought of Wallace kindly. The host of Fox News Sunday doesn't come across to me as partisan. Some of my left-wing friends like to pick on him because he's on Fox, but c'mon, the guy's no Glenn Beck.
Which is why Wallace's appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" last week was so disappointing. Wallace and O'Reilly have their panties in a bunch because President Obama snubbed them in his mega-interview Sunday, in which the president gave the exact same interview to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and Univision. It's disappointing because I would expect an objective journalist to at least mention the fact that Fox refused to air Obama's Sept. 9 health care speech, rather than chalking up the snub to "They don't like us WAAAAAAAHHH!"
Newsflash, Fox: when the president addresses a joint session of Congress, actual news organizations air it live. If your network chooses to go with whatever reality show it airs on a typical Wednesday instead, then it's signaling that it isn't much of a news organization. Therefore, you get bumped in favor of Univision. Wallace refers to the Reagan White House. I'm trying to imagine how Reagan press secretary Larry Speakes (quote: "You don't tell us how to stage the news and we don't tell you how to cover it.") would've reacted to a network refusing to cover a presidential address. My mental image involves a lot of tears outside a locked White House gate.
And in general, it's bad form to whine about someone else's whininess.
'Cause Biscuitville rocks, that's why
There's a new book out about my favorite chicken biscuit-making local business, Biscuitville. Headquartered in Greensboro, the family-operated breakfast chain has never gone into debt since its founding in 1966. WOW.
According to the book's author, Biscuitville's success is due to their corporate philosophy, which stresses personal relationships and ethics. They haven't over-reached, and they treat their employees well.
(On a personal note, I wish to thank Biscuitville for being one of the only restaurants that serves Diet Dr. Pepper. And also, I'm completely addicted to the new buffalo chicken biscuit, so, good call to whoever greenlit that one.)
According to the book's author, Biscuitville's success is due to their corporate philosophy, which stresses personal relationships and ethics. They haven't over-reached, and they treat their employees well.
(On a personal note, I wish to thank Biscuitville for being one of the only restaurants that serves Diet Dr. Pepper. And also, I'm completely addicted to the new buffalo chicken biscuit, so, good call to whoever greenlit that one.)
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Bill Simmons on Jake
Bill Simmons's weekly football picks column features the Panthers, particularly the stink-up performance by Jake Delhomme in last season's playoff loss to Arizona and Sunday's apocalyptic stomping at the hands of the Eagles defense.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Simmons write something about the Panthers that demonstrated some knowledge of the team beyond his usual "What, they're an expansion team?" blow-off, and I completely agree with his assessment of Steve Smith - a generous team leader who nevertheless has a history of assaulting teammates.
It restored my hope in a way. One game doesn't tell us much. (One game plus an 0-4 preseason, though...?) The fact that last Sunday didn't cause the Panthers to implode is a good sign. I've seen the Panthers quit on one another, and it isn't pretty. On the other hand - while I've never been a "winning is everything" fan - knowing that the guys all love each other even though they can't win is pretty cold comfort.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Simmons write something about the Panthers that demonstrated some knowledge of the team beyond his usual "What, they're an expansion team?" blow-off, and I completely agree with his assessment of Steve Smith - a generous team leader who nevertheless has a history of assaulting teammates.
It restored my hope in a way. One game doesn't tell us much. (One game plus an 0-4 preseason, though...?) The fact that last Sunday didn't cause the Panthers to implode is a good sign. I've seen the Panthers quit on one another, and it isn't pretty. On the other hand - while I've never been a "winning is everything" fan - knowing that the guys all love each other even though they can't win is pretty cold comfort.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Walking While Female
Something happened to my family and I this weekend… I started to write about it earlier in the week, but since my original draft exceeded my personal profanity quota, I decided that I should let it marinate awhile.
So, Sunday, I went to the Panthers-Eagles home opener with my parents, youngest sister and some friends. If you watched it, you know that the game wasn’t much to talk about. (Is the Panthers offense that bad, or Philly’s defense that good? We’ve got the next 15 games to figure that out.) Anyway, I got pretty overheated around halftime and ended up in the stadium care center with a nurse force-feeding me ice water, watching the second half on TV and hoping that I was hallucinating all those turnovers.
We figured that I could make it back to the car if I walked slowly enough (it was all downhill). Mom insisted that I get a Coke because the sugar and caffeine might help me feel better. So there we are – me doing this zombie shuffle, Mom holding me up, and the rest of the group getting further and further out ahead of us.
We were about halfway back to the car when I heard a guy behind us teasing someone about his Jake Delhomme jersey – not unusual, given the terrible game Jake had. But it turned out that his target was a little kid with his dad. The boy couldn’t have been more than seven or eight years old, as we saw when his dad hustled him past us.
This meant that the Classy Guys™ were now directly behind Mom and I. As we made our way down the sidewalk, we could hear them making comments about us – not under their breath, but right out loud where we couldn’t NOT hear them. And the comments were definitely directed at us, referring to the jersey Mom was wearing and to my outfit. I didn’t know this at the time, but one of the Classy Guys™ was actually stepping on Mom’s heels as she walked. She told me later that she felt physically threatened.
I’ve discovered recently that I have less and less patience with abusive bullies and their BS. Maybe it’s just that I’m getting older; maybe it’s just that I’m tired of myself and other women, children and men perceived as physically weak get knocked around by a-holes who think they’re entitled to be a-holes. They don’t deserve to be ignored, and they don’t deserve a disapproving glare. They deserve to be confronted and knocked down to size.
So I stopped, turned around, and poured what was left of my Coke on the nearest Classy Guy. I was going for his head, but since he was taller than me and still walking, I really only got his shoulder and back. And, like any bully will do when confronted, he froze in place. (I was lucky enough to be able to confront him in broad daylight surrounded by dozens of other people. I would never recommend confronting a jerk if you don’t feel safe doing so.)
We slowed down to let him and his buddy get past us. We reported them to two Charlotte police who were directing traffic, who kind of blew us off. And then, right before we got to our parking lot, there they were, leaning against a street sign and giving me the stank eye.
I was pissed, I admit it. I was so far beyond letting this roll off my back that it wasn’t even funny. So I held up my Coke can and asked Douche #1 (the one with the giant brown stain on his shirt) if he wanted some more. At which point Douche #2 shouted – to my back as I walked away – “If you were a man, I’d kick your ass!”
Ah, the great comeback. This always makes me chuckle. It’s what dickhead men say to women when they want to put us in our place with a show of their restraint. To which I say: Dude, don’t do me any favors. And what, is that some sort of chivalry thing? “Well, I would beat the hell out of you, but since you’re a tiny female and therefore beneath me, I will withdraw from the field of battle, thus proving my masculine honor.” Okay, first of all, I had a couple of inches and at least 30 pounds on this guy. Second, it seems to me that the truly honorable person wouldn’t threaten perfect strangers in the street to begin with. But maybe that’s just me.
What asshats. And while I definitely felt good about confronting them, it doesn’t change the fact that jerks like this do the same thing – and worse – to people they see as weaker every day, and most of the time they get away with it.
So, my two take-aways from this situation: 1) It’s infinitely easier to defend yourself from abuse if you’ve already worked through the concept that, while there will always be bullying mf-ers like this in the world, you DO NOT deserve what they dish out; and 2) the next one of said bullying mf-ers that crosses my path had better hope I’m only armed with a soft drink.
So, Sunday, I went to the Panthers-Eagles home opener with my parents, youngest sister and some friends. If you watched it, you know that the game wasn’t much to talk about. (Is the Panthers offense that bad, or Philly’s defense that good? We’ve got the next 15 games to figure that out.) Anyway, I got pretty overheated around halftime and ended up in the stadium care center with a nurse force-feeding me ice water, watching the second half on TV and hoping that I was hallucinating all those turnovers.
We figured that I could make it back to the car if I walked slowly enough (it was all downhill). Mom insisted that I get a Coke because the sugar and caffeine might help me feel better. So there we are – me doing this zombie shuffle, Mom holding me up, and the rest of the group getting further and further out ahead of us.
We were about halfway back to the car when I heard a guy behind us teasing someone about his Jake Delhomme jersey – not unusual, given the terrible game Jake had. But it turned out that his target was a little kid with his dad. The boy couldn’t have been more than seven or eight years old, as we saw when his dad hustled him past us.
This meant that the Classy Guys™ were now directly behind Mom and I. As we made our way down the sidewalk, we could hear them making comments about us – not under their breath, but right out loud where we couldn’t NOT hear them. And the comments were definitely directed at us, referring to the jersey Mom was wearing and to my outfit. I didn’t know this at the time, but one of the Classy Guys™ was actually stepping on Mom’s heels as she walked. She told me later that she felt physically threatened.
I’ve discovered recently that I have less and less patience with abusive bullies and their BS. Maybe it’s just that I’m getting older; maybe it’s just that I’m tired of myself and other women, children and men perceived as physically weak get knocked around by a-holes who think they’re entitled to be a-holes. They don’t deserve to be ignored, and they don’t deserve a disapproving glare. They deserve to be confronted and knocked down to size.
So I stopped, turned around, and poured what was left of my Coke on the nearest Classy Guy. I was going for his head, but since he was taller than me and still walking, I really only got his shoulder and back. And, like any bully will do when confronted, he froze in place. (I was lucky enough to be able to confront him in broad daylight surrounded by dozens of other people. I would never recommend confronting a jerk if you don’t feel safe doing so.)
We slowed down to let him and his buddy get past us. We reported them to two Charlotte police who were directing traffic, who kind of blew us off. And then, right before we got to our parking lot, there they were, leaning against a street sign and giving me the stank eye.
I was pissed, I admit it. I was so far beyond letting this roll off my back that it wasn’t even funny. So I held up my Coke can and asked Douche #1 (the one with the giant brown stain on his shirt) if he wanted some more. At which point Douche #2 shouted – to my back as I walked away – “If you were a man, I’d kick your ass!”
Ah, the great comeback. This always makes me chuckle. It’s what dickhead men say to women when they want to put us in our place with a show of their restraint. To which I say: Dude, don’t do me any favors. And what, is that some sort of chivalry thing? “Well, I would beat the hell out of you, but since you’re a tiny female and therefore beneath me, I will withdraw from the field of battle, thus proving my masculine honor.” Okay, first of all, I had a couple of inches and at least 30 pounds on this guy. Second, it seems to me that the truly honorable person wouldn’t threaten perfect strangers in the street to begin with. But maybe that’s just me.
What asshats. And while I definitely felt good about confronting them, it doesn’t change the fact that jerks like this do the same thing – and worse – to people they see as weaker every day, and most of the time they get away with it.
So, my two take-aways from this situation: 1) It’s infinitely easier to defend yourself from abuse if you’ve already worked through the concept that, while there will always be bullying mf-ers like this in the world, you DO NOT deserve what they dish out; and 2) the next one of said bullying mf-ers that crosses my path had better hope I’m only armed with a soft drink.
Another GOP health care reform opponent is full of it
Busy week, just now catching up on my Rachel viewing. I thought this was interesting:
Just out of curiosity, I decided to look up Rep. McMorris-Rodgers's vote on the Children's Health Insurance Bill (CHIP) earlier this year, since she's so frightfully concerned about disabled children not having adequate coverage. I was shocked, shocked, to find that she'd voted "no."
So, the take-away here is that this is one more GOPer who's completely lost her standing to bitch about health care reform efforts leaving vulnerable citizens out in the cold.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Just out of curiosity, I decided to look up Rep. McMorris-Rodgers's vote on the Children's Health Insurance Bill (CHIP) earlier this year, since she's so frightfully concerned about disabled children not having adequate coverage. I was shocked, shocked, to find that she'd voted "no."
So, the take-away here is that this is one more GOPer who's completely lost her standing to bitch about health care reform efforts leaving vulnerable citizens out in the cold.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Wednesday Word Nerd: To apostrophe, or not to apostrophe
At a certain greasy spoon in my hometown, a hand-written menu advertised “French Frie’s.” It irritated me so much that eventually I had to stop going in (thank goodness they had a drive-thru). The unfortunate menu-writer fell victim to a common misconception – that, if you’ve got an “s” on the end of a word, then you also need an apostrophe.
Well, you don’t. When you make a word plural by adding that “s,” you don’t need an apostrophe at all. When you add an “s” to a verb (“Sara spends way too much time blogging”), you don’t need an apostrophe either.
Apostrophes do a lot of things in the English language. In the most common usage, the apostrophe indicates a possessive – that something belongs to the person or thing in question. Examples: Sara’s blog, Kathy’s house, the president’s speech. The only way that menu would’ve been correct would be if we spelled “fry” as “frie” (we don’t) and if that frie owned something.
So, what do you do when the possessive word already ends with an “s”? Here’s where it gets tricky. The simplest rule is that you should just add the apostrophe and an “s” (“Congress’s bill”), but there’s some dispute there. Many people will add the apostrophe, but not the “s,” if the word ends with either “-es” or “-is” (“Doris’ car,” but “Congress’s bill”). It’s not incorrect, but you may find the first way simpler.
(The grammar Bible Strunk &White says to give everything an apostrophe + “s”, but use apostrophe-and-no-“s” with "ancient proper nouns" such as “Jesus’ disciples”… but, really, who the hell can keep up with that? Like I need to be debating whether something is an "ancient" noun according to two dead English majors along with everything else I’ve got to manage. And why do S&W think Jesus is a proper noun, but James isn’t, anyway? Seriously, let's not stress.)
For plural nouns that don’t end in “s,” add the apostrophe and “s” (“The children’s playground” – A playground belonging to many children). And what about plural nouns that do end in “s”? More trickiness: here you use only an apostrophe with no “s” (“My friends’ house”). This indicates that more than one friend possesses the house. If you’re only talking about one friend, then it’s “My friend’s house.”
As you can imagine, sometimes these rules can result in some pretty wacky sentence constructions (“Quentin Tarantino’s movies’ violence…”). Much of the time you can re-work the sentence so that it’s easier to understand (“The violence in Quentin Tarantino’s movies…”).
Next time: its vs. it’s
Well, you don’t. When you make a word plural by adding that “s,” you don’t need an apostrophe at all. When you add an “s” to a verb (“Sara spends way too much time blogging”), you don’t need an apostrophe either.
Apostrophes do a lot of things in the English language. In the most common usage, the apostrophe indicates a possessive – that something belongs to the person or thing in question. Examples: Sara’s blog, Kathy’s house, the president’s speech. The only way that menu would’ve been correct would be if we spelled “fry” as “frie” (we don’t) and if that frie owned something.
So, what do you do when the possessive word already ends with an “s”? Here’s where it gets tricky. The simplest rule is that you should just add the apostrophe and an “s” (“Congress’s bill”), but there’s some dispute there. Many people will add the apostrophe, but not the “s,” if the word ends with either “-es” or “-is” (“Doris’ car,” but “Congress’s bill”). It’s not incorrect, but you may find the first way simpler.
(The grammar Bible Strunk &White says to give everything an apostrophe + “s”, but use apostrophe-and-no-“s” with "ancient proper nouns" such as “Jesus’ disciples”… but, really, who the hell can keep up with that? Like I need to be debating whether something is an "ancient" noun according to two dead English majors along with everything else I’ve got to manage. And why do S&W think Jesus is a proper noun, but James isn’t, anyway? Seriously, let's not stress.)
For plural nouns that don’t end in “s,” add the apostrophe and “s” (“The children’s playground” – A playground belonging to many children). And what about plural nouns that do end in “s”? More trickiness: here you use only an apostrophe with no “s” (“My friends’ house”). This indicates that more than one friend possesses the house. If you’re only talking about one friend, then it’s “My friend’s house.”
As you can imagine, sometimes these rules can result in some pretty wacky sentence constructions (“Quentin Tarantino’s movies’ violence…”). Much of the time you can re-work the sentence so that it’s easier to understand (“The violence in Quentin Tarantino’s movies…”).
Next time: its vs. it’s
Blades don't need reloading
People tease me because I keep a katana sword next to my bed. My reasoning is that I don't want a gun, 'cause I'll just accidently blow my own head off with it, but I do want some sort of weapon. Not that I'll ever actually need it, but just for the sense of security it gives me when I hear a funny noise outside at 3 a.m. I figure that any burglar who comes to my house is probably not expecting a girl to pop out of bed with a damned samurai sword, so the element of surprise will be much more effective than the weapon itself.
And it looks like I'm not alone.
And it looks like I'm not alone.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Wednesday Word Nerd: There, there
(I really liked my "word nerd" blog last week, so I'm going to attempt to make this a regular feature... It's kind of sad how much I like writing about grammar.)
For some of us, it’s intuitive. It makes others want to run screaming from the room. It’s the decision on whether to use “there,” “their” or “they’re.” When you’re talking, it doesn’t really matter which of the three you’ve got in your head because they all sound the same. But, in writing, few things will paint you as uneducated or ignorant in the mind of your reader than screwing up there/their/they’re.
“There” is the sort-of opposite of “here,” and that’s easy to remember because you can’t spell “there” without “here.” Are you referring to a location, either actual (“over there”) or metaphorical (“There are four houses on that street”)? Then this “there” is the one you want.
“Their” is possessive; you will only use it when writing that something belongs to a group of people, as in “Their house is on that street.” (It never, never, never has an apostrophe.) At times you'll need to write "theirs" ("That car of theirs wakes me up every morning. They need to replace the @*&^ muffler") - again, no apostrophe, ever, ever, ever.
“They’re” is the simplest in many ways. It’s a contraction of “they are,” and as with all contractions (“you’re” and “it’s” included) you can determine when to use this one by breaking into its parts. You wouldn’t say “They are four houses on that street,” or “They are house is one with that awful crepe mytrle out front.” So, when you think you might want to write “they’re,” just take a second to imagine the sentence with the contraction spelled out. And 99.9 percent of the time you’ll have your answer.
Next time: does that “s” on the end of your word need an apostrophe?
For some of us, it’s intuitive. It makes others want to run screaming from the room. It’s the decision on whether to use “there,” “their” or “they’re.” When you’re talking, it doesn’t really matter which of the three you’ve got in your head because they all sound the same. But, in writing, few things will paint you as uneducated or ignorant in the mind of your reader than screwing up there/their/they’re.
“There” is the sort-of opposite of “here,” and that’s easy to remember because you can’t spell “there” without “here.” Are you referring to a location, either actual (“over there”) or metaphorical (“There are four houses on that street”)? Then this “there” is the one you want.
“Their” is possessive; you will only use it when writing that something belongs to a group of people, as in “Their house is on that street.” (It never, never, never has an apostrophe.) At times you'll need to write "theirs" ("That car of theirs wakes me up every morning. They need to replace the @*&^ muffler") - again, no apostrophe, ever, ever, ever.
“They’re” is the simplest in many ways. It’s a contraction of “they are,” and as with all contractions (“you’re” and “it’s” included) you can determine when to use this one by breaking into its parts. You wouldn’t say “They are four houses on that street,” or “They are house is one with that awful crepe mytrle out front.” So, when you think you might want to write “they’re,” just take a second to imagine the sentence with the contraction spelled out. And 99.9 percent of the time you’ll have your answer.
Next time: does that “s” on the end of your word need an apostrophe?
It's official: Sarah Palin is full of something brown and stinky
Sarah Palin in the Wall Street Journal today:
"Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs... But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration."
Then-Governor Palin in December of last year:
"The Alaska Health Care Commission was established by Governor Palin on December 4, 2008 under Administrative Order #246. The Commission will serve as the state health planning and coordinating body, providing recommendations to the governor and the legislature on a comprehensive statewide health care policy and on strategies for improving the health of Alaskans."
Who's on that panel? I'm so glad you asked. According to the commission's Web site, "The Alaska Health Care Commission consists of 10 members. Membership requirements are specified in the Administrative Order, and include the state’s chief medical officer (who also serves as chairperson of the commission), an Alaska health care provider and an Alaska health care consumer, and one representative each from the Alaska tribal health system, the Alaska health insurance industry, the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, and the Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association. Three nonvoting members are representatives from the state Senate, House of Representatives, and executive branch."
A group of unelected, unaccountable "experts" making decisions about health care policy? If it's good enough for Alaska, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us?
UPDATE: Re-reading Palin's executive order, I realized that I missed something the first time around. This health commission wasn't a product of debate in Alaska's legislature. Palin issued an order which took effect immediately creating a commisiion whose members she appointed and could remove at will. "Top-down" government is evil... what?
"Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs... But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration."
Then-Governor Palin in December of last year:
"The Alaska Health Care Commission was established by Governor Palin on December 4, 2008 under Administrative Order #246. The Commission will serve as the state health planning and coordinating body, providing recommendations to the governor and the legislature on a comprehensive statewide health care policy and on strategies for improving the health of Alaskans."
Who's on that panel? I'm so glad you asked. According to the commission's Web site, "The Alaska Health Care Commission consists of 10 members. Membership requirements are specified in the Administrative Order, and include the state’s chief medical officer (who also serves as chairperson of the commission), an Alaska health care provider and an Alaska health care consumer, and one representative each from the Alaska tribal health system, the Alaska health insurance industry, the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, and the Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association. Three nonvoting members are representatives from the state Senate, House of Representatives, and executive branch."
A group of unelected, unaccountable "experts" making decisions about health care policy? If it's good enough for Alaska, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us?
UPDATE: Re-reading Palin's executive order, I realized that I missed something the first time around. This health commission wasn't a product of debate in Alaska's legislature. Palin issued an order which took effect immediately creating a commisiion whose members she appointed and could remove at will. "Top-down" government is evil... what?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Incredibly, this is not a parody
This has got to be the least-catchy protest/rally song ever written:
Two things jumped out at me: 1) whoever transcribed the lyrics mis-spelled "Capitol," and 2) the juxtaposition of the utterly contradictory "leave my doctor alone" and "protect the unborn."
Two things jumped out at me: 1) whoever transcribed the lyrics mis-spelled "Capitol," and 2) the juxtaposition of the utterly contradictory "leave my doctor alone" and "protect the unborn."
Monday, September 7, 2009
This is what indoctrination looks like?
The full text of President Obama's Sept. 8 "back to school" speech is now online. Read it for yourself.
What struck me the most about the remarks is how closely the message sticks to time-honored conservative themes of personal responsibility and hard work. And in a time when Americans are falling further and further behind places like China, India, Hong Kong and Japan in technology and innovation, a get-off-your-ass call to arms is exactly what our young people need. It's almost Reaganesque.
What struck me the most about the remarks is how closely the message sticks to time-honored conservative themes of personal responsibility and hard work. And in a time when Americans are falling further and further behind places like China, India, Hong Kong and Japan in technology and innovation, a get-off-your-ass call to arms is exactly what our young people need. It's almost Reaganesque.
Ever the voice of reason
I have to say, I agree with just about every single thing Laura Bush says here. Yes, the Obama Administration's original lesson plan accompanying tomorrow's speech was ham-fisted, and yes, parents should be able to object to classroom content in public schools, but also, yes, the president is entitled to a certain amount of respect by virtue of the office.
I really wish Mrs. Bush had spoken more publicly during her husband's presidency. I mean, really - I love the way she can cut through the yelling and screaming and come up with something just makes sense.
I really wish Mrs. Bush had spoken more publicly during her husband's presidency. I mean, really - I love the way she can cut through the yelling and screaming and come up with something just makes sense.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Two memories
At the time, the only presidents I knew of were Washington, Lincoln, JFK and Reagan, who was at the tail-end of his second term. So there was no way for me to know that President Ford’s son lived in
Honestly – and I think this is important for the people worried about Obama brainwashing their kids – I have absolutely no idea what Ford said. Part of that was the late-80s audio that made him sound like one of the grown-ups in Peanuts, only talking from the bottom of a well, and part of it was that I was an eight-year-old who had no clue who this guy was. I was probably picking my toe-jam the entire time, or having a “Star Wars”-related day dream. And given that I’m an un-Ford-like liberal, I think it’s safe to say that I wasn’t brainwashed.
In college, I worked at Old Salem with a woman named Irma, who’d been a child in
This is where I don’t buy the comparisons of Obama talking to school kids with the frakking Nazis. Isn’t the very fact that the Glenn Becks and World Net Dailies of the world are freely spewing their rants without being hauled off to re-education camps proof that
Just for fun, here’s a brief list of things Obama has NOT done: eavesdropped on phone conversations without a warrant; given wide-ranging no-bid contracts to mercenaries; seriously thought about how the U.S. could justify suspending habeas corpus; financed a Central American coup by illegally selling weapons to frakking Iran; broken into a rival party’s headquarters; asked Secret Service details to spy on political enemies; promoted the overthrow/execution of democratically elected foreign heads of state.
And this is the guy you’re afraid of? Seriously, the Democrats are the last people you need to worry about. Hell, we’d spend a year arguing about how high to build the internment camp fences.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
What?
This man is a lunatic.
By the way, the John D. Rockefeller Beck is tying to some kind of communist sympathies among today's progressives and NBC news died in 1937.
By the way, the John D. Rockefeller Beck is tying to some kind of communist sympathies among today's progressives and NBC news died in 1937.
A Word Nerd Manifesto
Anyone who spends any time on the ‘net is used to seeing blog posts and comments whose spelling and grammar leave much to be desired. Most of the time, correcting the writers is pointless. Assuming they even check back on the post, spelling/grammar corrections usually derail the post topic and annoy everyone else. (And they almost always contain errors of their own, which is amusing from an instant karma perspective.)
The question came up on a Feministing discussion today – is correcting spelling and/or grammar also elitist? Maybe. In this particular case, an entry into the “Anti-Feminist Mailbag” series, I’m pro-correction, since the referenced e-mail was meant to demonstrate the writer’s superiority to the bloggers.
But it’s an interesting point. I’m an unapologetic Word Nerd. My screen-saver reads “I heart compound modifiers” (‘cause I do); I’m my office’s designated grammar and style hotline. I’m a Word Nerd due to my education, but also because I grew up in a household full of books and other readers where the written word was valued. Not everyone had those privileges.
But, as I’m fond of reminding the students I meet, there aren’t many jobs that don’t require some degree of proficiency in communication, spoken or written. But too many people went to schools where “language arts” was a form of torture – sentence diagramming, anyone? – that just turned people off. I detested having to work out algebra problems on the board in front of an entire class; I’m sure many of my classmates were equally traumatized in English class.
I can tell you right now that I learned infinitely more about the English language by reading than I ever did in a grammar lesson. So, I suppose that’s my advice to people who want to improve their writing: banish the memory of your nasty middle school language arts teacher and pick up a book, or a newspaper, or a magazine. Pick up many of them. Don’t be intimidated – there’s something you’re interested in, and somewhere, someone’s written about it. You wouldn’t try to drive a car if you’d never ridden in one. You shouldn’t expect to write effectively if you don’t read.
And one more thing… “you’re” = you are. Next time: their/there/they’re, when to use an apostrophe with your “s” and why Spell Check is not your friend.
The question came up on a Feministing discussion today – is correcting spelling and/or grammar also elitist? Maybe. In this particular case, an entry into the “Anti-Feminist Mailbag” series, I’m pro-correction, since the referenced e-mail was meant to demonstrate the writer’s superiority to the bloggers.
But it’s an interesting point. I’m an unapologetic Word Nerd. My screen-saver reads “I heart compound modifiers” (‘cause I do); I’m my office’s designated grammar and style hotline. I’m a Word Nerd due to my education, but also because I grew up in a household full of books and other readers where the written word was valued. Not everyone had those privileges.
But, as I’m fond of reminding the students I meet, there aren’t many jobs that don’t require some degree of proficiency in communication, spoken or written. But too many people went to schools where “language arts” was a form of torture – sentence diagramming, anyone? – that just turned people off. I detested having to work out algebra problems on the board in front of an entire class; I’m sure many of my classmates were equally traumatized in English class.
I can tell you right now that I learned infinitely more about the English language by reading than I ever did in a grammar lesson. So, I suppose that’s my advice to people who want to improve their writing: banish the memory of your nasty middle school language arts teacher and pick up a book, or a newspaper, or a magazine. Pick up many of them. Don’t be intimidated – there’s something you’re interested in, and somewhere, someone’s written about it. You wouldn’t try to drive a car if you’d never ridden in one. You shouldn’t expect to write effectively if you don’t read.
And one more thing… “you’re” = you are. Next time: their/there/they’re, when to use an apostrophe with your “s” and why Spell Check is not your friend.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A post wherein I freely mess with Texas
Back in April, Texas Governor Rick Perry hinted that his state might consider secession in remarks to an anti-tax rally. Perry quickly walked back his rhetorical flourish, but now a hopefully small faction of Texans has picked up the standard. This new crowd isn’t just hinting – they’re outright demanding that Texas declare its independence from America (previously declared by numerous Texans as the greatest nation on Earth).
I say let ‘em go. Keep Austin as some sort of Lesotho-like island of sanity, and just bid the rest of them good riddance. But, in all fairness, I’m concerned for how the new Republic of Texas would fare.
After all, the nearly two dozen U.S. military installations in Texas employ almost 200,000 service personnel, all of whom would immediately be reassigned to other posts. That’s not counting the thousands of support-staff jobs on the various installations, which are held by local Texans, or the jobs at the ancillary businesses that spring up around any area where thousands of military folks congregate.
Then there’s Johnson Space Center, the home of NASA’s Mission Control Center. That place employs 3,000 federal employees and an additional 15,000 contractors. All of which would either move to Florida or somewhere when Texas secedes or be out of a job. Houston, we have a giant unemployment problem.
So now The Republic of Texas is dealing with massive unemployment. Too bad its citizens are no longer eligible for federal jobless assistance. Also, no Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare. No Veterans Administration benefits. No federal highway funds. And let’s hope The Republic of Texas enjoys some decent weather, since they can’t get disaster aid from FEMA anymore.
But hey, The Republic of Texas has numerous natural resources to rely on, right? Like lumber. Of course, the Republic of Texas will have a pretty hard time selling any of that lumber to the United States of America, since President George W. Bush signed into law some pretty stiff tariffs on foreign lumber. Delicious irony, that. And I’m thinking that the various Texas-based oil and natural gas companies will probably relocate back to the U.S., given the recent governmental hostility to foreign oil.
But, on the bright side, the NFL and NBA would instantly have the international presence they’ve been after. And Texas would probably see a reduction in illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, given the whole massive unemployment thing. (Oh yeah… no Border Patrol.)
I’m being halfway facetious here. The secessionists are certainly a small faction of extremists, so it’s not like this is actually going to happen. But the thing about extremists is that they tend to push the centrists in one direction or another, even if only in increments.
There’s a real undercurrent of anti-government activism at work in our country, particularly among conservatives. And it’s pretty hypocritical when you pause to consider the hundreds, maybe even thousands of ways these very anti-government people benefit from federal jobs, funds and administrative policies.
I say let ‘em go. Keep Austin as some sort of Lesotho-like island of sanity, and just bid the rest of them good riddance. But, in all fairness, I’m concerned for how the new Republic of Texas would fare.
After all, the nearly two dozen U.S. military installations in Texas employ almost 200,000 service personnel, all of whom would immediately be reassigned to other posts. That’s not counting the thousands of support-staff jobs on the various installations, which are held by local Texans, or the jobs at the ancillary businesses that spring up around any area where thousands of military folks congregate.
Then there’s Johnson Space Center, the home of NASA’s Mission Control Center. That place employs 3,000 federal employees and an additional 15,000 contractors. All of which would either move to Florida or somewhere when Texas secedes or be out of a job. Houston, we have a giant unemployment problem.
So now The Republic of Texas is dealing with massive unemployment. Too bad its citizens are no longer eligible for federal jobless assistance. Also, no Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare. No Veterans Administration benefits. No federal highway funds. And let’s hope The Republic of Texas enjoys some decent weather, since they can’t get disaster aid from FEMA anymore.
But hey, The Republic of Texas has numerous natural resources to rely on, right? Like lumber. Of course, the Republic of Texas will have a pretty hard time selling any of that lumber to the United States of America, since President George W. Bush signed into law some pretty stiff tariffs on foreign lumber. Delicious irony, that. And I’m thinking that the various Texas-based oil and natural gas companies will probably relocate back to the U.S., given the recent governmental hostility to foreign oil.
But, on the bright side, the NFL and NBA would instantly have the international presence they’ve been after. And Texas would probably see a reduction in illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, given the whole massive unemployment thing. (Oh yeah… no Border Patrol.)
I’m being halfway facetious here. The secessionists are certainly a small faction of extremists, so it’s not like this is actually going to happen. But the thing about extremists is that they tend to push the centrists in one direction or another, even if only in increments.
There’s a real undercurrent of anti-government activism at work in our country, particularly among conservatives. And it’s pretty hypocritical when you pause to consider the hundreds, maybe even thousands of ways these very anti-government people benefit from federal jobs, funds and administrative policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)