There will always be grievance junkies, Robert. I'm grateful that you work so diligently to keep us so well informed. I do love that you use the Oxford comma:-)
Robert, I LOVE your newsletter! Thank you for your tireless efforts to help us all stay informed. There will always be grievance junkies. P. S. Love that you continue to use the Oxford comma hehe:-)
Your newsletters are a gift of information and reasoned optimism., Robert. Nitpicking belittles your generosity. My guess is that there is a circle in purgatory for the miscreants. I once had a grandfather of German-American background return my German-composed letters with corrections in red-pencil! Needless to say, the prospect of continued correspondence was effectively kaput.
Robert, I'm going to communicate with you privately about Roy Beck, to try to give you a better perspective on him.
Meanwhile, though, a bunch of people, including some friends of mine, some of whom are Americans living in France, were agonizing on one of their fb pages over the political situation in the US, fearing, after reading the NYT, that Trump was sure to win the next election. I posted your May 18th Today's Edition on the woman's FB, and suggested they should all read it, and subscribe, in order to get a better perspective on what's going on here.
If we never agree on immigration, or the use of "impact" as a verb, Today's is still going to remain extremely valuable to me.
Will The NY Times and other wake up to the fact that the GOP is so over the edge to the right that the only centrist Party are the Democrats, try to rebuild our home!❤️
Robert, please submit your article about the spurious "No Labels" con to the NYT as a letter to the editor! Thank you for cooking us up a great newsletter night after night! Who knew in law school that you'd turn out to be such a masterful chef!
Wow! A chock full newsletter. Thanks for outing the hypocrisy of No Labels collecting money as a 501(c)(4) corporation while simultaneously trying to get on the ballot as a political party. I hope that the Kochs, Crowe, and Thiel suddenly find their "charitable deduction" disallowed. And for the hypocrisy of the "Dems should have raised the debt ceiling" in 2022--little bit of a filibuster problem there.
One thing I haven't seen discussed about a Biden attempt to use the 14th Amendment. Can he use his emergency powers to move money from, say defense and gas/oil and other subsidies, to those programs for ordinary Americans? Trump did it for his wall, which was much less an emergency than a default. People talk about his using an executive order: wouldn't this be stronger if it was also a national emergency? Would the Supremes actually issue an injunction against his use of the 14th at the risk of default? If so, the first thing to go should be Supreme Court and Congressional salaries. The fact that it would involve litigation, absent an injunction, would make the whole thing an issue in the months running up to the election.
You write, “The small physical scale [of White House offices] is in jarring contrast to the enormity of the decisions made in those offices.”
*Enormity* describes decisions made in the Trump White House, but not the Biden White House. The definition of enormity is “outrageous or heinous character; atrociousness” (Dictionary.com ; other sources say the same).
Losing this definition would be ironically symbolic of the creeping acceptance of horrible behavior in our nation.
The identification of ‘enormity’ with ‘hugeness’ comes from the “sounds like it must be so” mode of definition that has become rampant un the US. I don’t think this is priggish. Although this mode of thinking and re-defining is becoming common, we should not succumb to it: the concept ‘enormity’ embodies is a key to feeling outrage over acts that the word should describe.
By the way, a similar word substitution I wish good people would resist is the growing use of “militia” in place of “paramilitary”. Where I live (Massachusetts), “militia” is a time-honored word, harking back to the American Revolution. Resist right-wing efforts to co-opt the word.
I love listening to you, helps me multi-task. I listened to the end. I was standing outside with my dogs, and your ending comments, I couldn't help roaring with laughter! I ain't that picky about yer grammar! LOL
Thank you for that wonderful explanation of split infinitives: to split or not to split!! I have always loved that famous line, “ To boldly go…”! Just says it all, boldly!!
In your most recent piece, you stated this: “First, it is important to know that prior to the North Carolina ban, most abortions were drug-induced (54%)…”
With all due respect, and as someone who is ardently pro-choice, I believe that 54% would be better characterized as “more than half”, rather than “most”. It’s important not to provide openings for the anti-abortion folks to accuse us of exaggeration.
Great to know what is really going on in the political arena rather than what appears to be going on. 'As far as correcting you on grammar, etc., I would not attempt that even if I were qualified to do so. I am much more interested in content than trying to find mistakes to show how clever and and educated I am (which I am not, having left school in England at age 14 wich was mandatory at the time). Now, at 90 I don't care about such things; as they say, life is too short :)
Regarding the abortion situation I'm glad to see the Texas legislature is being sued by women who were denied treatment for life threatening illnesses brought on by pregnancies gone wrong.
Please! Stop the criticism of Robert’s grammar & writing! Let us focus on his message & appreciate his wonderful effort!
There will always be grievance junkies, Robert. I'm grateful that you work so diligently to keep us so well informed. I do love that you use the Oxford comma:-)
Robert, I LOVE your newsletter! Thank you for your tireless efforts to help us all stay informed. There will always be grievance junkies. P. S. Love that you continue to use the Oxford comma hehe:-)
Your newsletters are a gift of information and reasoned optimism., Robert. Nitpicking belittles your generosity. My guess is that there is a circle in purgatory for the miscreants. I once had a grandfather of German-American background return my German-composed letters with corrections in red-pencil! Needless to say, the prospect of continued correspondence was effectively kaput.
Robert, I'm going to communicate with you privately about Roy Beck, to try to give you a better perspective on him.
Meanwhile, though, a bunch of people, including some friends of mine, some of whom are Americans living in France, were agonizing on one of their fb pages over the political situation in the US, fearing, after reading the NYT, that Trump was sure to win the next election. I posted your May 18th Today's Edition on the woman's FB, and suggested they should all read it, and subscribe, in order to get a better perspective on what's going on here.
If we never agree on immigration, or the use of "impact" as a verb, Today's is still going to remain extremely valuable to me.
Will The NY Times and other wake up to the fact that the GOP is so over the edge to the right that the only centrist Party are the Democrats, try to rebuild our home!❤️
Robert, please submit your article about the spurious "No Labels" con to the NYT as a letter to the editor! Thank you for cooking us up a great newsletter night after night! Who knew in law school that you'd turn out to be such a masterful chef!
I LOVED YOUR POST SCRIPT!!!!!!!
Wow! A chock full newsletter. Thanks for outing the hypocrisy of No Labels collecting money as a 501(c)(4) corporation while simultaneously trying to get on the ballot as a political party. I hope that the Kochs, Crowe, and Thiel suddenly find their "charitable deduction" disallowed. And for the hypocrisy of the "Dems should have raised the debt ceiling" in 2022--little bit of a filibuster problem there.
One thing I haven't seen discussed about a Biden attempt to use the 14th Amendment. Can he use his emergency powers to move money from, say defense and gas/oil and other subsidies, to those programs for ordinary Americans? Trump did it for his wall, which was much less an emergency than a default. People talk about his using an executive order: wouldn't this be stronger if it was also a national emergency? Would the Supremes actually issue an injunction against his use of the 14th at the risk of default? If so, the first thing to go should be Supreme Court and Congressional salaries. The fact that it would involve litigation, absent an injunction, would make the whole thing an issue in the months running up to the election.
Robert,
You write, “The small physical scale [of White House offices] is in jarring contrast to the enormity of the decisions made in those offices.”
*Enormity* describes decisions made in the Trump White House, but not the Biden White House. The definition of enormity is “outrageous or heinous character; atrociousness” (Dictionary.com ; other sources say the same).
Losing this definition would be ironically symbolic of the creeping acceptance of horrible behavior in our nation.
The identification of ‘enormity’ with ‘hugeness’ comes from the “sounds like it must be so” mode of definition that has become rampant un the US. I don’t think this is priggish. Although this mode of thinking and re-defining is becoming common, we should not succumb to it: the concept ‘enormity’ embodies is a key to feeling outrage over acts that the word should describe.
By the way, a similar word substitution I wish good people would resist is the growing use of “militia” in place of “paramilitary”. Where I live (Massachusetts), “militia” is a time-honored word, harking back to the American Revolution. Resist right-wing efforts to co-opt the word.
Here endith my ‘rant’ about word meanings.
I love listening to you, helps me multi-task. I listened to the end. I was standing outside with my dogs, and your ending comments, I couldn't help roaring with laughter! I ain't that picky about yer grammar! LOL
Thank you for that wonderful explanation of split infinitives: to split or not to split!! I have always loved that famous line, “ To boldly go…”! Just says it all, boldly!!
Hi Robert,
In your most recent piece, you stated this: “First, it is important to know that prior to the North Carolina ban, most abortions were drug-induced (54%)…”
With all due respect, and as someone who is ardently pro-choice, I believe that 54% would be better characterized as “more than half”, rather than “most”. It’s important not to provide openings for the anti-abortion folks to accuse us of exaggeration.
Thanks.
I question why the NYTimes did not check the No Labels background and participants and call it "centrist" when it is obviously NOT!
Great to know what is really going on in the political arena rather than what appears to be going on. 'As far as correcting you on grammar, etc., I would not attempt that even if I were qualified to do so. I am much more interested in content than trying to find mistakes to show how clever and and educated I am (which I am not, having left school in England at age 14 wich was mandatory at the time). Now, at 90 I don't care about such things; as they say, life is too short :)
Regarding the abortion situation I'm glad to see the Texas legislature is being sued by women who were denied treatment for life threatening illnesses brought on by pregnancies gone wrong.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-women-sue-texas-asking-123339247.html
Also https://news.yahoo.com/texas-forced-woman-birth-stillborn-182841209.html
Of course! I’ve been following their dirty deeds for years.