I enjoyed Rick Casey's column in today's Chronicle. He's been taking a more even-handed approach in his writings during the Rosenthal-crisis than Lisa Falkenberg and Alan Bernstein, so his "intellectual honesty" is way up in my book, especially compared to Lisa and Alan.
There were some things that I think are worth pointing out.
1. Jolanda Jones will never miss an opportunity to call a press conference. Those of us who have worked with her around the courthouse know that she has never let a lack of knowledge about a subject slow her down from speaking like an authority.
Seriously, Jo, you are going to call a media conference in the middle of a Federal proceeding just so you can accuse Rosenthal of hiring Ron Lewis because Lewis is African-American? How racist is that? The guy went to Princeton and Harvard and was a member of Baker-Botts. I'm pretty sure that your own resume wouldn't hold a candle to Mr. Lewis'.
2. Casey is dubious over the possibility that Chuck truly has (or has ever had) a problem with prescription substance abuse.
I tend to agree with him, here. Chuck has always been a loose cannon throughout his career in some varying degrees. I don't think the drugs can really explain all of his erratic behavior. I think the article that came out a few weeks ago is the one that hit the nail on the head when it talked about Chuck's lack of judgment (or the "J word", as they cleverly called it). I don't think that was drug-induced.
3. I'm going to be bothered all day over the grammar of the article - "What drugs were he taking?" or should it have been "What drugs was he taking?".
Neither one sounds right. This is going to drive me crazy.
17 comments:
Hehe! Good eye, AHCL! It's "what drugs was he taking?”. Although, to be technically correct, it would be "which drugs was he taking?". "Were" would only work if there was more than one subject of the sentence.
That’s pretty sad. The Chronicle proofreader should be "summarily executed". :-)
Well, I can't really throw stones, especially since I created the mother of all run-on sentences in the first paragraph of this post.
On the contrary, it was a snazzy and skilled, compound-complex sentence. A+ :)
AHCL, you're not fooling me. I know you're actually posting as "Anonymous C" and praising yourself. It's truly disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Hehe!
"You should be ashamed of yourselves."
But, J, since we're the same person, shouldn't it be "yourself"? ;-)
Damn, Anon C, you beat me to the punch. I was going to say that. So, I guess I beat myself to the punch.
J, I would tell you that Mark Bennett can attest that Anon C and I are two different people, but people have already accused me of being Mark Bennett, and his wife, Jennifer. Damn, it gets tiring being FOUR people all at once.
When in doubt, answer the question and see what sounds best:
"He were taking A, B, and C" or
"He was taking A, B, and C."
Actually, were is correct. It's a plural thang (i.e., he was using the plural drugs instead of the singular drugs). Of course, simply rephrasing the question would have lessened confusion, but it would have been less instructive.
Welcome back Leviathan. Where've you been?
And how do you respond to the allegations that were is, in fact, incorrect, because the subect is "he", which is singular?
Pardon me. Of course, the singular would have been drug.
Alas, my kingdom for a horses. But, then, they shoot horse, don't they? I suppose no one should be saddled with that conundrum as their mane issue, but it is a bit entertaining. Perhaps I should rein in my thoughts, corral my thoughts, and just put myself to pasture. All of this phraseological jockeying makes me buggy and my colors begin to show in this high-stakes game of blogging.
Shall I say more? Neigh.
Oh, man! I am dying over here!
This whole, all-encompassing night of comments is pretty effin’ priceless! Hehe!
Big hugs to you, Leviathan! You are a true gentleman!
My thoughts? You easily could say "What was he taking?" In that case, "he" is the subject. However, in Casey's actual statement, you have the plural subject "drugs," which cannot be overlooked. The pronoun is not always the primary subject of a sentence that contains multiple nouns.
Since you asked.
Ummmm...not so much. The subject IS the subject. But big hugs anyway!!!!
STOP THE PRESSES: "During a break at the federal courthouse during the contempt hearings against DA Chuck Rosenthal late last month, City Councilwoman Jolanda Jones told reporters she had something to say."
Rick Casey's first mistake was listening to this gargantuan windbag and graduate of the Sheila Jackson Lee School of Self-Promotion. Am I the only one shaking my head in disbelief that anyone would listen to Jolanda "I Will Survive" Jones pontificate on whether another lawyer was doing a good job? Would she know a good job if she saw it?
AHCL, I respectfully request that you start a thread on JJ for comic relief if nothing else.
Yes, Jolanda is always good for a laugh, even though she doesn't realize it is usually at her own expense. Since she was elected to City Council (after a couple of failed attempts), her ego has multiplied. Even those who used to be able to tolerate her are sick of her now. Someone needs to remind her that she was elected to City Council, not the Presidency.
AHCL, you must not have seen this:
http://blogs.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2008/02/raise_your_glasses_for_kelly_a.html
Its funny that you would mention that. I did read the blog and that's what led to my article below about the results. I guess I read it too fast, because I thought that Mike Snyder had been the author of that particular contribution to the blog.
If I had seen earlier that it was Alan Bernstein, I would have made a bigger deal out of it.
Could this possibly be the beginning of an Era of Good Feelings between Kelly and Alan?!?!
We'll see, but I kind of doubt it.
Post a Comment