A Gentle “Sheesh!”

Technorati Tags: The New York Times,Tom Friedman,Language

Even the better writers sometimes goof.

Today it’s the turn of Thomas L Friedman in The New York Times with this bit lifted from today’s column on Iraq:

We overpaid in lives, in the wounded, in tarnished values, in dollars and in the lost focus on America’s development. Iraqis, of course, paid dearly as well.

Now the column is, of course, about America’s involvement and what we, and the world, can hope for in the future; but to use the cavalier of course makes Friedman seem a tad dismissive of the terrible times inflicted upon the Iraqis in our name.

“Of course” is just too casual and clichéd to be used in such a serious matter.

Sheesh!

Trust, but verify. (And that means edit yourself, Tom.)

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, Dave!

Technorati Tags: David Brooks,New York Times,punditry

“Most people just want somebody who can articulate their hatreds…”

Interesting clause, eh wot, Dear Gentle Readers? It flows from the virtual pen of David Brooks this morning in his column posted in the New York Times.

While one hates to nit-pick, it seems quite unlikely that most people are in want of an articulate mean guy (or gal) to give voice to innermost disdain.

Edit yourself, Sir. Otherwise you write something which diverts the attention of a reader from your point.

Please.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Define “huge”

The National Law Journal has a great headline: Hips will be huge next year.

Of course, it isn’t really about pant-size, but it’s a hoot anyway!

Bravo, head writer!

Sphere: Related Content

Translations

Technorati Tags: Translations,Religion,Context

“Tolstoy wrote…” is an opening phrase you might hear a few times in your life. As soon as you do, Dear Gentle Reader, you might pause in your listening to think, “Really?  Are you certain.”

Here are a couple of quotes from a French workbook:

“Elle a pris une decision.” (Sorry, you’ll have to imagine the accent over the e in decision.) The workbook then translates that sentence into 1) She made a decision; 2) She has made a decision; and 3) She did make a decision.

“Elle faisait..” can mean “She was doing…”, “She used to do…”, or “She did…”

Context matters; and context is a word which encompasses quite a lot, including, but not limited to the mores of the times—both of the time of the original writing and the time of the translation.

Much thought and subjective decision-making go into translations. So much so that we should be careful about placing too much confidence in what a translator finally presents.

And the more important the translated material might be to our individual and collective lives, the more cautious we should be.

For instance, religious writings should be treated with much caution. (Surely you saw that coming.)

Trust, but verify; or, in this case, read it in the original before you accept it totally.

Good luck with that.

Sphere: Related Content

Another war lost

Technorati Tags: War on Drugs,Law Enforcement,LA Times

The Los Angeles Times has an interesting lead story today, with a fascinating headline: “Jail bars are no barrier to drug traffic” (print edition). It’s a fascinating read which brings up many questions. For instance, how is it that a guard whose divorces eat up “70%” of his salary stays on the job? (A recent attempt by LAPD to monitor certain officers’ bank accounts met with howls of protest.) Or, how is it that a 19-year-old was assigned to guard hardened drug criminals? (He’s served a 180 day sentence for providing drugs to an inmate.)

Fans of crime stories, though, should not be surprised that guards provide drugs to prisoners. Without that device of corrupt prison workers, writers would be stuck.

For now, it is obvious to everyone but those making a profit off of it (including, but not limited to, DEA bureaucrats and drug cartels) that we’ve lost the war on drugs. Really! We have.  If law enforcement is part of the problem, what chance to we have?  So it’s time to declare victory and turn the fight over to the United Corporations of America, you know, the folks who really run the country. It won’t take them long to get things right.

If we legalize the drug industry, we will obtain some worthwhile benefits.  We will save money wasted on armaments; we will gain some needed tax revenue through the controlled sale of drugs; we will be able to regulate the drug industry; we will cut down on deaths caused by impure street drugs; and we will have a boatload of money to double down on anti-drug education.

Once Wall Street gets its hands on the business, everyone, especially those people in Central and South America whose lives are in jeopardy every day this senseless War on Drugs lasts.

It is more intelligent than what we’re doing now.

And Juan can get back to growing coffee beans.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Sap, indeed

Technorati Tags: New York Times,David Brooks,President Obama,Republicans

David Brooks, over at The New York Times, has unloaded on President Obama.

Brooks claims to have been “a sap” for believing just about anything Mr. Obama has said over the past 2 1/2 years because of the specifics in the President’s new plan to cut some taxes and raise some others.

But Mr. Brooks’ sappiness really becomes obvious when, towards the end of his column he writes: “at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think.”

Oh, Dave, Dave, Dave.

If you believe Republicans respect the average American, you’re such a sap.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

2nd step in reading

Technorati Tags: Doonesbury,Censorship,Palin,Reading,JoeMcGinnis

The current brouhaha regarding the Doonesbury comic strip is a good example of distraction as a metaphor for sleight of hand.

The strip is being censored in a few newspapers for its political content. At least that’s alleged reason.

If you look at the strips in question, though, it’s easy to see that Gary Trudeau isn’t being critical of Sarah Palin so much as he’s taking some shots at Fox News and the sort of newspapery being touted as journalism by right wing news outlets.

The panels quote from Joe McGinnis’s new book, to be sure, but the punch lines are aimed directly at the journalist who’s reading the book and then spinning the quoted material in absurd terms. He is the object of ridicule, not the former 1/2 governor (see the distraction?).

The sleight of hand comes in when the censoring newspapers allege it’s the political content which merits the removal of the strip, but actually those newspapers don’t want the public to think about what the comic journalist is doing. That might call too much attention to what the papers, themselves, are doing in reporting the political news.

It’s time for the English teachers of the world to point out to their students that calling words is only the first step in reading. The second step is thinking about the content of those words.

If there were more thought in the reading process, we’d’ve learned long ago that individual politicians are transitory, but institutions are more permanent. And there’s more danger to a flawed journalism institution than there is in a single pol.

Trust, but verify. 

 

Sphere: Related Content