In the New Yorker...

[serious crayons]

I'm  not following you here. Surely you aren't suggesting paraphrasing something and passing it off as a direct quotation? 

No! I'm just saying he might have paraphrased something Schiff said that was too wordy or something to quote directly, then launched into the significant part in a direct quote.

I completely disagree with you on the "that," but maybe that's just the way I was taught by various English composition teachers, including one who was also my journalism teacher.

My high school English teachers didn't get very granular about stuff like, well, that. But at the risk of sounding immodest, at this point I trust my own judgement more than I do a high school English teacher's. I have seen essay writing instructions from my sons' high-school teachers that were atrocious. Basically, students at one of the leading pubic high schools (my sons') in a state known for high-quality education (Minnesota) do not get taught how to write proper essays. I'm not sure I was, either, also in a highly regarded suburban district in the same state admired for its schools. I didn't learn much about writing before college, and barely even then.

I'm not following you here, either. You're saying it reads better without a "that," but you're putting in a "that." 

I put in the "that" because I was testing it. I did not think it read as smoothly as the sentence sans "that." But the other thing that makes this sentence particularly awkward is the "put it." If he'd just used "said," the sentence might not be the talk of dinner tables across the land tonight.

Personally, I would write the sentence like this

At a minimum, "the Russians mounted what could be described as an independent expenditure campaign on Mr. Trump's behalf," said Representative Adam Schiff, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Or, if he wanted to end the sentence on the Trump thing for added emphasis, he could go

At a minimum, said Representative Adam Schiff, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, "the Russians mounted what could be described as an independent expenditure campaign on Mr. Trump's behalf."

[Front-Ranger]

I'm learning so much here! Things I learned, forgot, relearned and discarded years ago!

I wonder how you feel about the use of the definite article, particularly at the beginning of a title or sentence? My (distant) ancestor Robert Louis Stevenson, wrote: “Home is the sailor, home from sea”. He wanted the noun to be anarthrous (lacking the definite article) — like, say, the title of Treasure Island (it wasn’t “The Treasure Island”). He also assigned an anarthrous title to the story he based on the wicked Deacon William Brodie’s double life: He called it Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Publishers recoiled at this grammatical oddity. Some prefixed “The”; others dropped the first three words, calling it Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. And he titled my favorite work Kidnapped, instead of The Kidnapping.

[serious crayons]

I wonder how you feel about the use of the definite article, particularly at the beginning of a title or sentence? My (distant) ancestor Robert Louis Stevenson, wrote: “Home is the sailor, home from sea”. He wanted the noun to be anarthrous (lacking the definite article) — like, say, the title of Treasure Island (it wasn’t “The Treasure Island”). He also assigned an anarthrous title to the story he based on the wicked Deacon William Brodie’s double life: He called it Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Publishers recoiled at this grammatical oddity. Some prefixed “The”; others dropped the first three words, calling it Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. And he titled my favorite work Kidnapped, instead of The Kidnapping.

I don't think there's a rule about that. Sometimes omitting the "the" can make a title sound a bit snappier. It seems like it's in the ear of the beholder. To me, Treasure Island and Kidnapped sound better than the alternatives. But Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, sans "the," sounds weird to me.

The situation I've struggled with is in reference to an organization, such as FDA or AARP. I normally would put a "the" before those. But I've noticed that the organizations themselves tend to omit the "the," like "FDA has approved such and such ..." In the case of AARP, an official from the organization told me directly that they don't use "the."

Maybe this only applies to organizations with acronyms; I'm not sure.

But there's no real rhyme or reason to this. For example, you could say you saw a sebment from a TV show "on television." But you wouldn't say you saw the very same video "on internet." (Though you might say you saw it "online."  )

What's even more confusing to me is "on" vs. "in." I run into this whenever I say where my work has been published. If it's an internet site, like Salon, I would normally say "on Salon." If it's a newspaper or magazine, like Real Simple, I would say "in Real Simple." But basically, they're the same things -- magazines. It's just that one is in pixels and one is in print. This causes a problem when I'm listing all my stuff at once, for a resume or bio, and trying to figure out what article to use: "My work has appeared ..." in or on?

[Jeff Wrangler]

My (distant) ancestor Robert Louis Stevenson, wrote: “Home is the sailor, home from sea”. He wanted the noun to be anarthrous (lacking the definite article)

It's been a long time for me, but isn't that from a poem? Do the same rules apply to poetry as to prose?

— like, say, the title of Treasure Island (it wasn’t “The Treasure Island”).

I always assumed Treasure Island was supposed to be a place name, rather than an adjective and a noun, but that might be because the copy I had when I was a boy had a map of the fictitious  island.

[Aloysius J. Gleek]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/republican-women-in-alabama-sound-off-on-moore

News Desk
Republican Women in Alabama Sound Off on
Roy Moore

By Charles Bethea   December 1, 2017


“If that guy doesn’t think I need to be anywhere but the kitchen birthing babies, he can kiss my ass,”
one member of the Alabama Republican Party said, of Roy Moore. Photograph by Brynn Anderson / AP



On Wednesday evening, ThinkProgress reported that Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for Alabama’s open Senate seat, co-authored a 2011 textbook called “Law and Government: An Introductory Study Course.” The book’s Amazon page, which includes a single rating, of five stars, states that the book “provides an understanding of today’s legal, moral, and ethical issues of law and government.” One of its subjects is the appropriate role of women in society. As ThinkProgress notes, the book, which consists of lectures by several men, “instructs students that women should not be permitted to run for elected office. If women do run for office, the course argues, people have a moral obligation not to vote for them.” Additionally, the book criticizes the women’s-suffrage movement. Another of its authors is Doug Phillips, a proponent of so-called Biblical patriarchy who resigned from Vision Forum—a now-defunct evangelical organization, which helped produce the textbook—after admitting to an affair with a girl who later filed a suit alleging that Phillips began grooming her for sexual abuse when she was fifteen.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for Moore told The Washingtonian  that “Judge Moore has never stated or believed that women are unqualified for public office.” I spent much of yesterday speaking with Republican women in Alabama who either have worked or continue to work for conservative causes and candidates. I asked them how Moore’s connection to the Vision Forum textbook could affect the support he receives in the December 12th election, which recent polls give him an edge to win over the Democrat, Doug Jones. (Jones had previously surged ahead in some polling, partly on the strength of female support, but his momentum seems to have ebbed.) Most of the women answered on the record, despite the negative repercussions that doing so could have on their party standing. Elizabeth BeShears is a political-communications consultant based in Birmingham. “In Alabama, we talk all the time about how, historically, the men run but the women are the ones who get them elected,” BeShears told me. “As a woman who has worked hard to get Republicans elected to office, at all levels in the state, it’s extremely worrying to me to know that somebody who’s supposed to represent us at one of the highest levels in the country doesn’t think I’m good enough to serve in any capacity in political leadership.”

BeShears went on, “For folks under forty in particular, Roy Moore has been a source of embarrassment—not a source of pride—for the majority of our lives. We don’t want to reward that by putting him in the Senate, where he’ll have an even larger stage—or pulpit, as he probably imagines it—to talk about his brand of Christianity. It’s time that the Republican Party in Alabama knows that we’re not going to stand for being told that they have to vote for a person just because they have an ‘R’ beside their name.” Who would BeShears vote for? “I am prayerfully considering voting for Doug Jones.”

Another powerful female figure in the state Party, who asked to remain unnamed, was more explicit. The textbook’s anti-woman argument was, for her, one of the most damning stories about Moore so far. “Does that mean our governor shouldn’t be governor?” she asked, referring to Kay Ivey. “Our Supreme Court Chief Justice shouldn’t be Supreme Court Chief Justice, and our Republican Party state chairwoman shouldn’t be chairwoman?” (Those positions are currently held by Lyn Stuart and Terry Lathan, respectively.) “Because, I’ll tell you, I wasn’t gonna vote at all until this morning,” she continued. “I wasn’t gonna vote for Moore or Jones. Now I’m voting for Doug Jones. Because if that guy”—Moore—“doesn’t think I need to be anywhere but the kitchen birthing babies, he can kiss my ass.” She added, “I can’t say it publicly because it’ll ruin my career, and I don’t know how to do anything other than politics in Alabama. I would be without income tomorrow. I can’t stand up and say anything. But if I’m not good enough to be in government, then I’m not good enough to vote for him, either.”

Collier Tynes describes herself as a “Christian, pro-life conservative and lifelong Republican.” Until earlier this year, Tynes worked as the chief of staff to the former Alabama First Lady Dianne Bentley, who is now the ex-wife of the disgraced governor Robert Bentley. Tynes played down the impact of the textbook. “At this point, lifelong Republicans are not surprised by Judge Moore’s association with a book that takes scripture out of context and preaches invalid beliefs,” Tynes told me. “It’s the credible allegations of child molestation against Judge Moore that rightfully have pro-life Christians staying home on Election Day or surrendering their votes to a Republican write-in candidate.” Tynes declined to publicly state for whom she would be voting, though, as she has said elsewhere, it would not be Moore.

Then there are those female supporters of Moore for whom the textbook revelation is, to quote Alabama’s state auditor Jim Zeigler, much ado about very little. Debbie Dooley, the co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party and a Moore backer, argued, in an e-mail, that just because Moore was one of the textbook’s authors doesn’t mean that he shares all the views within it. “It is like being part of an event, but you don’t necessarily agree with all the speakers,” she wrote. She went on, “I don’t believe for a minute that he believes that way. He has too many strong women around him, including his wife Kayla. He also had Sarah Palin campaign for him and has praised her.” As ThinkProgress reported, Moore has never publicly endorsed a female candidate for office.

BeShears told me that she fears that this latest revelation will have a marginal effect on the vote. “People have made up their minds about voting for him or not—barring something just absolutely crazy coming out in the next week and a half,” she said, adding, “It’s sad to me to have to say that, in the context of Moore’s reputation, this textbook thing isn’t fatal. It would sink a lot of other people. But he has such a loyal base that I don’t know what it would take to get them not to vote for him.” Tynes was slightly more optimistic but, nonetheless, sounded despairing about the situation. “Defending victims of childhood molestation and the importance of women in government should not be controversial. Thus, the Alabama Republican Party’s continued support of Roy Moore has put lifelong Republican voters in a horrible position.”


Charles Bethea is a contributing writer for newyorker.com and has written for The New Yorker since 2008.

[serious crayons]

Here's a funny one, from an online political column about Al Franken stepping down.

Consider the tax bill, which is stitched together from shameless greed and boldface lies.

Republicans may well be shameless, but I don't think they've become shameless enough yet to put their lies in boldface. Clearly s/he means "bald-faced lies."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/al-franken-resignation-and-the-selective-force-of-metoo?mbid=nl_Daily%20120817%20Subs&CNDID=26521759&spMailingID=12526068&spUserID=MTMzMTgyNzYxNTMyS0&spJobID=1300779312&spReportId=MTMwMDc3OTMxMgS2

[serious crayons]

Oops! I may stand corrected, with (as always) a reference to Shakespeare:

The third version [after bald-faced and bare-faced] is your boldfaced lie. A story one sometimes hears in support of it falls firmly into the area of folk etymology — that it comes from a lie knowingly told in print because it was printed for emphasis in bold type. But bold-faced goes back to Shakespeare in the sense of a shameless or impudent appearance, so it’s reasonable that a boldfaced lie is one told with a shamelessly bold face. At times it’s regarded as an error, though it’s to be found almost as early as barefaced lie:

The sneer, the sarcasm, the one-sided statement, the perplexing reference, the qualified concession, the bold-faced lie, — all these we could well illustrate by samples of the current crop. -- Eclectic Review, Sept. 1832.

When we call a lie baldfaced or boldfaced ... either one is just fine, though baldfaced is a bit more common. But we could save ourselves trouble by following the rest of the Anglophone world, which avoids the issue simply by using barefaced for most kinds of openly shocking behavior. -- Jan Freeman, writing in the Boston Globe in June 2002.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bal2.htm

[Front-Ranger]

There are many kind of lies. Who knew?

At least he did not say unabashedly. One of my least-favorite words lately.

[serious crayons]

At least he did not say unabashedly. One of my least-favorite words lately.

Why?   

[Front-Ranger]

It's just way overused. I think people get carried away with the "bash" part of it. Plus, there are so many prefixes and suffixes attached to the root word that it's almost impossible to tell what the word means. Why use so many syllables when a better, shorter word, like "boldly" could be substituted? Nobody knows what "bash" means, anyway. Look it up and it's a verb; or in British English it's a party. And abash by itself? It means "to destroy the self-confidence, poise, or self-possession of". I think a lot of people who use the word don't realize what it means, they just like the sound of it.