Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Boomer nostalgia porn. Yawn.
To my shame I had to look up the meaning of the word "oleaginousness". But then all was explained when Google came up with a picture of Ted Cruz. A picture speaks a thousand words...
It'll win all the Oscars. And like "Dances with Wolves" and "No Country for Old Men" it will be forgotten in five years.
Remember when Spielberg made "The Color Purple" and won nothing?
My guess is that's not what he had in mind when Ted Cruz told his mother he's be famous one day.
You are right - a picture of Ted Cruz does come up, with the Merriam-Webster definition of oleaginous ...
"weenie lawyers"? What does it mean? (I googled "weenie" and found that it can mean (1) a frankfurter, or (2) a man's penis. Please explain (if you can).
Or whether people were aware of nuggets like this:
"As early as January 1955, President Diem was stating publicly that he was unlikely to proceed with the Geneva elections: "Southern Viet-Nam, since it protested the Geneva Agreement when it was made, does not consider itself a party to that Agreement, nor bound by it. "
"The U.S. did not -- as -is often alleged - - connive with Diem to ignore the elections . the elections . U. S. State Department records indicate that Diem ' s refusal to be bound by the Geneva Accords and his opposition to pre-election consultations were at his initiative. However, the U.S., which had expected elections to be held, and up until May 1955 had fully supported them, shifted its position in the f ace of Diem ' s opposition, and of the evidence then accumulated about the oppressive nature of the regime in North Vietnam . "
Some excerpts/points from an internal study (classified) that those left-of-center seem to try to ignore, and instead make ejaculations about lies (which were true to an extent, as well as underestimating/misinterpreting events/developments, which normally happens in foreign affairs - a normal state of affairs actually).
I wonder how many have actually "read" the Pentagon papers? It is actually an interesting bit of a historical work and case of self-examination.
Like in the chapters dealing with the mid/late 1950s, the authors wondered if the "fighting ever actually stopped" and about whether early on that Diem even knew he was under attack.
And of course, the history of the other side is much more obscure, with what was essentially a red fascist state, but if recent works and Ken Burns' documentary are even remotely accurate, then those who pressed for armed struggle took control of the government (Le Duan, Le Duc Tho), leaving Ho a front man, and raising more questions about Giap's contributions to the war (or on the positive side, being sidelined, and avoiding the disasters that later unfolded).
And, the papers ended at the Johnson administration. Granted Ike's administration came under the microscope, which Nixon was vice president in, but Nixon's administration was not showcased in that history. Some speculated that Kissinger got ticked off, because of fears that his earlier consulting work may come out, in a not so great light. And he seemed to have some overly strong reaction about Ellsberg.
To my double shame, I had to look it up too but couldn't find it!! I'll try again. Thanks for the headsup with Cruz.
Or when he haphazardly gave up his Canadian citizenship?
It all sounds like comfort food - comfort food for the left...
TE: " The feminism of the film is perfectly timed to the #metoo moment"
TS: Hilarious! Doesn't TE know that she gave a standing ovation when the Academy gave an Oscar in 2003 to a convicted child rapist who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl!?!? He raped the poor drugged minor in the "biblical" way too.
"Perfectly timed to the #meetoo moment" INDEED!
When I googled it, I found that "weenie is sometimes confused with weeny", but "weeny" means "tiny": "tiny lawyers", that does not make sense either. "Spineless" may be what the author meant, but why not say it straight? Do writers, and all of us, have the right to ascribe new meanings to words without explaining what we mean? Or is that 21st century newspeak, inaccessible to outsiders?
My apologies re forgetting/confusing your mother tongue. You have never ceased to amaze me how perfect your English is, Perrodin, and when you point out the grammatical mistakes you see on these community boards, how correct you are. Your solid knowledge of the grammar rules has not gone to rust even after so many years of living in America. Once upon a long time ago, those same rules were what was taught to me. But believe it or not, in certain "milieus", if you speak and write like that these days, some folks will really really see you as "not one of them" and proceed to discriminate against you! - the irony of irony - Revenge of the Uncouth nd Unkempt. Americans - a good many of them, I am referring only to fans of Bigly in the Class of Refudiation, as amply reflected by a good number of posters in TE community forums - can't even do their own language right. And they have the nerve to pick nits in the English of other folks for whom English is their second, third language.
The other thing is I don't think we need to change what we have learned to accommodate what's "trending". By definition and self-admission, that sort of things have very short shelf-life. One day it is dandelion, another day it is daisy. Better stick with what is proper and what is correct. Straight teeth always look better than crooked teeth, let alone unbrushed ones. And, you are not old in your brain. You are sharp and keen. You are above average for your stated age. Way above. Take it from me. I am a pro in assessing that sort of things.
Interestingly, my local library had the papers packaged up as a book.
Not sure how since complete declassification supposedly took place around 2011.
Here is a link: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB359/
Another revisionist, clearly biased, "documentary" by the Hollywood set. That's why it's BORING. I can't wait for Hanks to play Harvey Weinstein. Of course, they don't have the guts to or to run for office and have their productions analyzed for truthfulness. The producer and actors are, characteristically, purposely distorting reality and soft-selling political bull-shoveling.
Sure, languages evolve. In the sense its use needs to match what is out there in the real world, change is a good thing. Change in the world of language is dictated by what is consensual, not what a snob (that's me, guilty as charged) prefers.
Perhaps I am one who is too much in love with the inherent beauty in things that take more time and attention to make. Consider the New Yorker. Compare what was a mere 10 years ago with what is today. Same with TE. Same with WSJ. Many things you read you just know the writer has not taken the time it takes to make it better.
Or consider the old movies where actors spoke like O'Toole or Howard (Leslie) and Olivier, and the movies now where sometimes you can't make out what the actors are saying because they simply lack proper training. As to speeches, forget it!! Listen to a Churchill, or an FDR or a Kennedy (JF) speech. You are instantly motivated to learn to speak English properly. Litsen to Mr. Bigly, you are instantly plagued by an ulcer.
I wish I could tell French words usage as you do. I can't. All I know is I love listening to 2 actors - Delon (Alain) and Depardieu. (Both awfully old now). I wouldn't know a word they are saying but for the subtitles, but the sound of what is spoken is so pleasing to the ear.
Thanks. In my case, it seems to be an age-related problem; even in French (my mother language), I am no longer up-to-date. Apparently, a language can evolve faster than those who speak it.
Perrodin, I struggle with the same myself. And my "burden" is an even heavier one, since English is my second language. Sometimes when I am lost, I look up the Urban Dictionary. I think young or youngish people nowadays have a different idea about language usage. Not so much "newspeak" as 'code talk". Precision in speech is not what they strive for. Here I surmise, repeat, surmise, the author tried to mock the legal profession in general (what else is new? You know the source of that kind of mocking - envy) but lack the forthrightness to do so (kind of "spineless" him/herself. Note this is a tip-off for substandard speak, not newspeak. I think that is all. Not all of TE's writers are first rate. Some are pretty bad. Also some are free-lancers. Pay attention to the initials of the writer each time you find something that irks you. They are consistently the same handful.
The proper meaning would probably be "spineless' or maybe venal.
Still, languages evolve and younger people do not express themselves now as their elders did (and still do). These changes also affect, if not the pronunciation, at least the intonation; radio speakers, for instance, do not sound the way they sounded thirty or forty years ago (nor do U.S. Presidents, but that is another story).
[Example: in a cooking recipe, in French, the author advised readers to measure ingredients "au pif" (i.e. roughly; "pif" means "nose"); years ago, it would have been "à vue de nez" ("as your nose sees it", same meaning). "Au pif" is still slang, but slang has become acceptable.]