A Palin-esque Power to Polarize?

The dining section of yesterday’s New York Times had an interesting article about pizza. This sentence really caught my eye:

It’s scrutinized and fetishized, with a Palin-esque power to polarize.

I wonder whether a casual reader fifty years in the future will appreciate what a brilliant turn of phrase this is.

This Restaurant Will Give You Gas

Hat tip to GrammarBlog.

A Fourth of July Observation

Serious writers detest nominalizations, also known as buried verbs. These verbs are buried because they’ve been changed into nouns. Buried verbs lead to abstract, obtuse prose.

Take, for instance, this sentence:

After the transformation of nominalizations, the text has fewer abstractions, so readers’ visualization of the discussion finds enhancement.

When the buried verbs transform into real verbs, the sentence becomes much more lively:

Uncovering buried verbs makes writing more concrete so readers can more easily see what you’re talking about.

See Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Modern American Usage 117 (2d ed. 2003).

But on the Fourth of July, I can’t resist pointing out that buried verbs are not always inferior. I’m thinking of a set of buried verbs with which all Americans are familiar:

No taxation without representation.

No writer can “unbury” these two verbs without destroying the soul of this slogan.

Powerpoint Will Never Be the Same

I recently read Presentation Zen and advise you to do the same. If you give powerpoint presentations, following its simple rules will make you a superstar.

This book has changed my (professional) life.

What the Constitution Means

The last sentence of Adam Liptak’s New York Times article says it all:

The Constitution, it turns out, means what Justice Kennedy says it means.

“Don’t Tell Me That Democrats Won’t Defend This Country!”

This Sunday, Mr. Safire had a terrific column about straw men.

The column quotes Mr. Obama’s nomination-acceptance braggadocio: “Don’t tell me that Democrats won’t defend this country!”

Mr. Safire argues—correctly—that such arguments are misleading:

Who was telling him that? To be sure, his opponents were claiming that a Republican administration would be stronger on defense, but nobody was telling him or the voters that Democrats preferred abject surrender.

Lawyers make straw-man arguments all the time. In fact, I bet Obama learned to do it from being a lawyer.

And don’t tell me that I’m a mindless dullard who doesn’t know what he’s talking about!

Writing Is a Sacred Act

I recently picked up a copy of the third edition of A Writer’s Companion on half.com for seventy-five cents (plus shipping and handling, of course).

I love this book. Here’s one of my favorite lines:

In some ancient societies, writing was considered a sacred act because it had so much authority in the community, and thus only priests were allowed to do it. In its various forms, writing is still the strongest cement of the social order.

How to Write a Powerful Opening Sentence

From the front page of today’s New York Times:

The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report, its pages marked “highly confidential,” that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons.

DEAR JUDGES

Yesterday’s edition of Courtoons is genius.

Hat tip to the (new) legal writer.

Has President Obama Tapped Judge Sotomayor?

John McIntyre makes a good point: there must be a better way to discuss President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court than with a verb that suggests that President Obama has had sex with her.

To select is a much better word choice. It adds clarity and dignity, at a cost of two letters. Surely these two letters are worth it.

It Upsets Me Because I’m an English Teacher

This is a terrific cartoon.

Few in Number

I often hear lawyers talking about things that are few in number.

• Clients who are not cost-cutting are few in number.
• Opportunities for young attorneys to get into court are few in number.
• Associate openings at large law firms are few in number.
  

Few in number is a terribly redundant phrase.

Lawyers should follow Samuel Johnson’s advice and “avoid ponderous ponderosity.” While we’re at it, let’s stop using other redundant phrases like:

• basic fundamentals
• future plans
• absolute necessity
• mix together
  

Vile and Unspeakable Blasphemy

A colleague recently forwarded me A. O. Scott’s review of Angels & Demons. It’s a masterpiece of snootiness:

I have not read the novel by Dan Brown on which this film . . . is based. I have come to believe that to do so would be a sin against my faith, not in the Church of Rome but in the English language, a noble and beleaguered institution against which Mr. Brown practices vile and unspeakable blasphemy.

There’s No Problem with Em Dashes

Newser has a little piece entitled The—Problem—With—Em—Dashes. In case it’s not clear from the title, the article contends that em dashes are commonplace and trite:

A punctuation plague is raging through contemporary prose, indulged in by ordinarily excellent writers and hacks alike. It’s the “em dash,” writes Lionel Shriver for Standpoint—that punchy, aggressive punctuation mark beloved for its flexibility . . . But we must have some restraint: em—dashes—are—used—way—too—frequently, and great style requires variety.

I agree that if six em dashes appear in a single sentence, then yes: em—dashes—are—used—way—too—frequently. But no semiliterate writer would ever use them in that way. So I stand by my assertion that em dashes are underused, particularly in legal writing.

Lawyers, use the em dash!

Quick Language Tip: Fluid? Liquid?

Writers often use fluid and liquid interchangeably. But these two terms have distinct meanings.

While all liquids are fluids, not all fluids are liquids. That’s because a fluid is a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure. So a fluid can be a gas or a liquid.

John McIntyre’s Top Ten Blogs

John McIntyre, of You Don’t Say fame, is sharing a list of his favorite language-and-editing blogs. Check it out!

GOP Clowns

This photo set is amazing. Hat tip to Veto Corleone.

Justice Souter’s Resignation Letter

You can read Justice Souter’s letter here.

In it, he tells the President that he “mean[s] to continue to render substantial judicial service . . . .” And lawyers wonder why they’re almost universally regarded as terrible writers!

Justice Souter apparently also means to continue to render substantial emphasis to lawyers’ unnecessary wordiness.

Hall of Shame: In Order To

The phrase in order to can almost always be reduced to to.

Instead of saying:

In order to win her motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Simply say:

To win her motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Oh Really?

My daughter’s reaction to the news that the next Supreme Court justice will likely be a woman.

Toucherism. Toucherism!

0:45 through 1:30 is fine, fine rhetoric.

You’ve Got that Patriotism in Ya That People Just So Respect!

Check out 1:10. Thank you for that.

Justice Roberts Brings the Snark

Chief Justice Roberts’s opening line in Dean v. United States is a zinger: “Accidents happen. Sometimes they happen to individuals committing crimes with loaded guns.”

Yesterday’s New York Times had a terrific article about Dean. Mr. Dean is a bankrobber whose gun accidentally went off during a heist. He was sentenced to eighteen years, which included a federal mandatory sentence for committing a crime in which a firearm was discharged.

The New York Times piece culls two other great lines from the case:

• At the argument last month, Justice Antonin Scalia asked Mr. Dean’s lawyer for an example of a gun discharge during a bank robbery that would not qualify. Justice Stephen G. Breyer jumped in. “He sees a duck fly by the window and he’s a hunter,” Justice Breyer said, referring, perhaps, to one of Justice Scalia’s pastimes.
• Chief Justice Roberts offered potential bank robbers some advice. “Those criminals wishing to avoid the penalty for an inadvertent discharge,” he said, “can lock or unload the firearm, handle it with care during the underlying violent or drug trafficking crime, leave the gun at home or—best yet—avoid committing the felony in the first place.”

A Kind of Souvenir Shop

In today’s New York Times, Adam Liptak has a wonderful article about the First Amendment implications of states’ refusal to issue “Choose Life” license plates. I love how Mr. Liptak points out that the proliferation of specialty plates undercuts the states’ position:

Had the states not decided to make license plates a forum for a sometimes comical array of messages, the “Choose Life” cases would be easy. But many states have turned their motor vehicle departments into a kind of souvenir shop. They may also have given up the right to decide what gets sold in them.

WeRNOT GoiNgToTaKEiT

I love signs that the Tea Partiers made. This one is my favorite. America is humble.

The Supreme Court is Outside Mainstream Opinion (Again)

From the Abbeville Manual of Style:

In a charming publicity stunt turned terrifying commentary on the state of the American judicial system, several Supreme Court judges have just decided in a mock trial that Shakespeare didn’t actually write Shakespeare. Yes, they’ve revived the old “Shakespeare authorship question,” in which scholars only one degree less legitimate than “ufologists” attempt to prove that Shakespeare’s plays were really written by Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, or one of several other candidates, and not by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.

I think Coppelia Kahn, president of the Shakespeare Association of America and professor of English at Brown University is onto something when she says: “Oh my. Nobody gives any credence to these arguments.”

Bryan Garner’s Nightmare

A friend from law school recently e-mailed me this charming cartoon.

Running for Office?

If you’re running for office, make certain that your Facebook page doesn’t have photos like this one on it.

What’s a Hotel?

A colleague recently asked me, “Aren’t all large dictionaries pretty much the same?”

As Sen. Stevens famously said, “No!”

Dictionaries aren’t “pretty much the same” at all. Take, for example, a word with which we’re all familiar: hotel.

If you were to look it up in The New Oxford American Dictionary, you’d learn that a hotel is an establishment providing accommodations, meals, and other services for travelers and tourists.

Most readers would probably agree that this is a fine definition.

But Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines hotel quite differently:

a building of many rooms chiefly for overnight accommodation of transients and several floors served by elevators, usually with a large open street-level lobby containing easy chairs, with a variety of compartments for eating, drinking, dancing, exhibitions, and group meetings (as of salesmen or convention attendants) with shops having both inside and street-side entrances and offering for sale items (as clothes, gifts, candy, theater tickets, travel tickets) of particular interest to a traveler, or providing personal services (as hairdressing, shoe shining) and with telephone booths, writing tables, and washrooms freely available.

If you prefer one of these definitions over the other, you’ll agree with me that dictionaries aren’t all pretty much the same.

Quick Language Tip: Aggravate

Some writers use aggravate for irritate in their formal writing. But they probably shouldn't, because to aggravate is to make something worse.

An injury, for example, can aggravate a preexisting condition. But an injury cannot, strictly speaking, aggravate its victim.

Fifty Years of Stupid Grammar Advice

Oh snap! Prof. Pullum totally dissed The Elements of Style:

The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students’ grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.

I think Prof. Pullum is right: no one book should provide all the grammar instruction that most Americans get. And even if there must be such a book, The Elements of Style is a poor candidate.

We've Been There Before

At his wonderful blog, Mr. McIntyre aptly places America’s recent Tea Party fervor in context:

We’ve been there before. John Adams was a closet monarchist who was going to destroy our freedoms. Thomas Jefferson was going to turn lose the Jacobins and slaughter owners of property.

In the 1820s and 1830s, the Masons were going to take over the country. Then there were the successive bouts of nativist hysteria. If you have in your ancestry anyone of German, Irish, Italian, Eastern European, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese or Hispanic extraction, you can be assured that your ancestors were denounced as the scum of the earth and the doom of the Republic.

In the early days of the past century, Socialists took over the country with minimum-wage proposals and eight-hour workdays and an end to using children in factories and other outlandish ideas.

Franklin Roosevelt was going to destroy all wealth in the country. Harry Truman was a patsy for the Soviets (and so, depending on which flavor of conspiracy you favored, was Dwight Eisenhower).

Later, Richard Nixon was undermining the Constitution (oh, wait, that one happened), and then Ronald Reagan was going to get us into a nuclear war with Soviet Union and the elder George Bush was a pawn of some secretive internationalist group called the Trilateral Commission that was going to absorb the whole country and, well, you know.

Equipage?

A few days ago, United Airlines’ Senior Vice-President of Operations, Joe Kolshak, was on NPR, discussing the high cost of upgrading to a GPS air traffic control system. His word choice jumped out at me:

It’s very hard for me to go to the CFO of the company and ask for tens of millions of dollars for equipage when it’s not going to be required, and more importantly, I will not gain the benefit for another 10 or 15 years.

I noticed that Mr. Kolshak used equipage instead of equipment.

He must be trying to convince his chief financial officer to spend a prodigious amount of money on a carriage and horses with attendants. And I think that his CFO has pretty good business judgment.

Navy SEALs

The five-day stand-off between Somali pirates and the United States Navy is over.

Navy snipers were able to shoot three pirates, all at the same time. At the time of the shooting, the pirates held a hostage at close quarters. The pirates and their hostage were in a life raft, and were bobbing up and down in choppy waters. The snipers were themselves on a moving boat. They had probably been sitting motionless for many, many hours before taking their three simultaneous shots. And the sun was going down!

What kind of wizards could pull this off? Navy SEALs.

Of course, SEAL stands for Sea, Air, and Land. Navy SEALs compose an elite force that specializes in guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency.

The capitalization of their name, though, is perplexing the news media almost as much as the SEALs' marksmanship is amazing the rest of us.

Media outlets have rendered the name of this elite special warfare unit as Seals.

I always thought, though, that they were called SEALs.

That's how that Navy's own website refers to them. Although Garner's Modern American Usage is silent on the topic, the New Oxford American Dictionary also endorses SEALs.

So why does the New York Times only give them an uppercase S, especially when WASPs get the full uppercase treatment?

Thomas Paine on Simple, Powerful Prose

Mr. Paine was onto something:

As it is my design to make those that can scarcely read understand, I shall therefore avoid every literary ornament and put it in language as plain as the alphabet.

John Keane, Tom Paine: A Political Life x (2003).

Is "Allegedly" a Safe Word or a Fudge Word?

The other day I heard a lawyer say this:

I wasn’t really sure when the accident happened. So in the brief, I just wrote that accident allegedly happened in October. Allegedly is a safe word.

Of course, a safe word is a codeword used in the bondage-discipline-sadism-masochism community to indicate one’s physical, emotional, or moral boundary.

I don’t think that’s what the lawyer had in mind when he said that allegedly is a safe word. It would have been more accurate and honest to say that allegedly is a fudge word.

Who-That, Part II

I recently blogged about relative pronouns, noting that for things other than human beings, that and which are the proper relative pronouns. I then offered this allegedly incorrect sentence:

The goods were produced by firms who had independent contracts with the Government.

It didn't take long for a clever reader to call me out:

You mean to make a valid point but your examples undermine it.

A company (assuming incorporation) is a "legal person" so it may be appropriate to use "who", especially in a legal document.

And a "firm" is a partnership of individuals so a collective noun and we can see the people hiding in it. So "who" may work here too?

The reader is mistaken, though. As Mr. Garner puts it:

[T]hat and which are the relative pronouns for . . . entities created by humans.

Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage 836 (2d ed. 2003) (emphasis added).

Mr. Garner notes that who isn't the proper relative pronoun for companies and financial institutions. It also isn't the proper relative pronoun for firms, partnerships, or corporations, no matter what Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. says.

Quick Language Tip: Who? That?

Who is a relative pronoun for human beings. For things other than human beings, that and which are the proper relative pronouns.

That's why this sentence is wrong:

The goods were produced by firms who had independent contracts with the Government.

Firms are not human beings; the sentence should be:

The goods were produced by firms that had independent contracts with the Government.

Of course, using who in place of that is a common mistake.

Even terrific writers get it wrong on occasion:

In order to elicit private financing, the Mexican Government granted concessions to companies who would build and operate the system of toll roads.

Grupo Mexicano De Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 310 (1999) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

Things That Only Britons Can Try And Get Away With

The other day, I was reading about Thomas Paine's brief adventures in the Seven Years War:

He took his prize money—naval warfare at that date was still semi-piratical—and went to London to try and improve himself.

Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man 21 (2006) (emphasis added).

Mr. Hitchens's choice of words struck me, because I thought that try and was a casualism and the sentence would be more proper as:

He took his prize money—naval warfare at that date was still semi-piratical—and went to London to try to improve himself.

But it turns out that try and is a standard idiom in British English. While a speaker of American English couldn't get away with this, Mr. Hitchens gets a free pass.

Beware of Double Meanings: Happy Endings

A happy ending is a fictional plot in which everything resolves in favor of the hero.

Of course, a happy ending is also an orgasm that concludes an erotic massage.

I presume—and hope—that the BBC's headline-writer had the former meaning in mind.

Hat tip to Vito Corleone.

Great Leads

Good leads introduce your subject matter to readers. Great leads do so with logical, simple, honest, and memorable language.

The front page of yesterday's New York Times had great leads. Here's one about Northern Mexico's violent drug cartels:

TUCSON — Sgt. David Azuelo stepped gingerly over the specks of blood on the floor, took note of the bullet hole through the bedroom skylight, raised an eyebrow at the lack of furniture in the ranch-style house and turned to his squad of detectives investigating one of the latest home invasions in this southern Arizona city.

A 21-year-old man had been pistol-whipped throughout the house, the gun discharging at one point, as the attackers demanded money, the victim reported. His wife had been bathing their 3-month-old son when the intruders arrived.

“At least they didn’t put the gun in the baby’s mouth like we’ve seen before,” Sergeant Azuelo said. That same afternoon this month, his squad was called to the scene of another home invasion, one involving the abduction of a 14-year-old boy.

After reading this lead, are you interested in reading the article?

Here's another example, a lead from an article about the new Secretary of Energy:

WASHINGTON — As a physicist, Steven Chu has seen atoms suspended in a powerful laser beam and DNA stretched out in a vacuum chamber.

But in his new job as energy secretary, Dr. Chu is observing phenomena he never saw in the science laboratory.

After reading this lead, are you interested in learning more about Dr. Chu?

Now that we've seen two great leads, let's consider a terrible lead. Here's an opening from an actual brief:

The state's argument is the same as the statement of the court. That is to say, that is what the court did, and that is what the court does, then the court does what the court does; and if that is what the court does, it is all right, because that is what the court does.

Tom Goldstein & Jethro K. Lieberman, The Lawyer's Guide to Writing Well 81 (2d ed. 2002).

Do you notice a difference?

The Cat Is out of the Barn

This morning, Kent Conrad was a guest on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

He spoke in trite language and quickly confused clichés:

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about you, Senator Conrad? Do you agree that -- no new money to AIG unless they give back this -- these bonuses through some -- in some fashion?

CONRAD: Look, to me, unfortunately, the cat's out of the barn, the horse is out of the barn. You've already put up $170 billion. So, you know, frankly, I would take a different tack.

Nowadays, Everybody Has a Blog

Even Barack Obama's teleprompter has its own blog.

Very Unique?

I recently came across a First Circuit opinion with an interesting concluding paragraph:

In the very unique circumstances of this case, we therefore decline to enforce the appeal waiver. The conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing. We intimate no view on whether appellant should receive a higher or lower sentence on remand, or on the reasonableness of his previous sentence or on any revised sentence.

United States v. Quirindongo-Collazo, 213 Fed. Appx. 10, 13 (1st Cir. 2007) (emphasis added).

The circumstances of a case cannot be very unique, because unique embraces a mathematically absolute concept: being the only one of its kind. A thing either is or is not unique. There aren't degrees of uniqueness.

If very is essential to the sentence, a nonabsolute adjective solves the problem:

• In the very remarkable circumstances of this case . . .
• In the very unusual circumstances of this case . . .
• In the very rare circumstances of this case . . .
• In the very distinctive circumstances of this case . . .

Otherwise, removing very solves the problem:

• In the unique circumstances of this case . . .

Impress Your Friends with Complex-Sounding Legal Jargon

From The Onion:

Year Of Law School Now Mandatory For Nation’s 25-Year-Olds

WASHINGTON — Under the provisions of a bill approved by Congress and signed into law Tuesday, every 25-year-old American, regardless of prior life commitments, is now legally obligated to enroll in a full year of study at one of the nation’s accredited law schools. “This new measure gives us the means to compel 25-year-olds to simultaneously placate their parents, impress their friends with complex-sounding legal jargon, and effectively avoid any real-world responsibilities for another full year,” said Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN). “We can think of no better way for our young people to squander their postcollegiate aimlessness.” Congress is reportedly seeking further legislation that would provide for an additional nine months of grumbling over LSAT prep, and up to five years of whining about paying off student loan debt.

Spelling Vandalism

May the Legislature Giveth and Taketh?

Connecticut Lawyer recently ran an article about Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health. In Kerrigan, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that Connecticut's state constitution requires that same-sex couples be permitted to enter into marriage.

The article is noteworthy because it discusses the differences between marriages and civil unions in dated language:

Marriage, although regulated by the legislature, is a fundamental right, the abridgement of which must serve compelling governmental interests; civil unions are a creature solely of statute, and what the legislature giveth, the legislature may taketh away.

Quoting the Bible in discussions about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is problematic. But if the Bible must be quoted in such discussions, it should at least be quoted accurately. The giveth-taketh phrase is much more archaic than the actual language of the King James Bible:

Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped. And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

Job 1:20-21 (King James).

What's the Difference between Somalis and Somalians?

I recently listened to a fascinating NPR program about a terrifying terrorist organization:

Somali-American youth in Minneapolis would suddenly go missing, telling their parents they were going out with friends or just off to do some laundry—only to board planes to Africa. About 20 young men have disappeared so far, and they are believed to have traveled to Somalia to join a terrorist group. American counterterrorism officials' worst fears are personified by a young Somali-American named Shirwa Ahmed. He left Minneapolis about 18 months ago to join an Islamic militia in Somalia called al-Shabab. Then, last October, he drove a car full of explosives into a crowd in Somaliland, killing 27 people.

During the call-in segment of the show, I noticed that some callers used the adjectives Somali and Somalian interchangeably.

But there's a distinction between the two words.

A Somalian is a citizen of the Republic of Somalia. Of course, the Republic of Somalia is a country in name only.

A Somali, on the other hand, is a member of the largely Muslim ethnic group in the Horn of Africa.

So a person can be Somali but not Somalian, Somalian but not Somali, or both Somali and Somalian.

And the Cushitic language of the Somali ethnic group is called Somali, not Somalian.

Quick Language Tip: Jail? Prison?

I recently overheard a lawyer talking about Bernie Madoff's plea deal:

It looks like Bernie Madoff is going to do serious jail time.

But Mr. Madoff isn't going to do jail time as a result of entering a guilty plea.

That's because a jail is a detention center where accused criminals awaiting trial are confined.

A prison, on the other hand, is a facility for the confinement of convicted criminals.

Books That Make You Dumb

There's a terrific new site that compares Facebook favorite-book data with average SAT scores to produce a fascinating data set.

The Constitution Wasn't Written in Microsoft Word

Some of the questions on Yahoo! Answers scare me. Here's a prime example:

i'm looking to find out what Font wrighting is We The People is on the American Constitutuion so i can use that font in a Word Prosseser

Wow.

Schoolhouse Rock Explains Grammar

“Mr. Morton is the subject of the sentence and what the predicate says he does.”

The First Rule of Legal Writing

Wayne Schiess has a short post with a simple maxim: “Do not mimic the format, style, or citation form of judicial opinions.”

The Supreme Court Disfavors Preemption, but not Pre-Emption

The United States Supreme Court recently released its 6-3 opinion in Wyeth v. Levine, which addresses whether FDA approval of drug labels preempts state tort claims. (It doesn't.)

Although the opinion's take on preemption is noteworthy, what really struck me about the opinion is that the Court hyphenates pre-empt and pre-emption.

I had always thought—with good reason—that these words are properly spelled without a hyphen. See Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 682 (2d ed. 1995).

Begging the Question

This weekend, State Secretary Clinton traveled to the Middle East—in listening mode.

In response, former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy argued that it's pointless for Secretary Clinton to travel to the Middle East unless she's in speaking mode:

Anything she says can be construed as taking a stand on the coalition negotiations. She will likely keep her comments to a minimum, which begs the question of why go there?

But Secretary Clinton's terseness doesn't beg the question. To beg the question is to reason in a circular way. To beg the question isn't to raise an obvious question.

Mr. Levy should have said:

Anything she says can be construed as taking a stand on the coalition negotiations. She will likely keep her comments to a minimum, which raises a question: why go there?

Dialect Society Survey Results

The Dialect Society has its survey results online, with maps.

I love the sort of maps that show where people pronounce the h in huge, humor, humongous, and human!

"You Be Da Man!"

During the election season, Rep. Michele Bachmann was a guest on Hardball with Chris Matthews. In her interview, Rep. Bachmann hinted that members of Congress are, in fact, un-American:

MR. MATTHEWS: How many are anti-American in the Congress right now that you serve with?

REP. BACHMANN: You'd have to ask them, Chris. I'm focusing on Barack Obama and the people that he's been associating with. And I'm very worried about --

MR. MATTHEWS: But do you suspect that a lot of people you serve with --

REP. BACHMANN: -- their anti-American nature.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, he's a United States senator from Illinois. He's one of the people you suspect as being anti-American. How many people in the Congress of the United States do you think are anti-American? You've already suspected Barack Obama. Is he alone, or are there others? How many do you suspect of your colleagues as being anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: What I would say -- what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating exposé and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an exposé like that.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you very much, U.S. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

This intriguing exchange (briefly) put Rep. Bachmann in the national spotlight. You can see the video here:



Now, Rep. Bachmann is back in the news for her introduction of the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele:

Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man!

I'm still undecided as to whether Michael Steele “be da man.” The press will report more about him in the coming months, and I look forward to getting to know Mr. Steele.

But the fourth estate has a ready-made investigative project in Rep. Bachmann. To put it in familiar words:

What I would say -- what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating exposé and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-grammar or anti-grammar? Do they use language authentically? Do they care about the English language and how it's used? I think people would love to see an exposé like that.

Well, at least I would love to see an exposé like that.

Outhouse Counsel?

Because it creates rhythm, parallel structure is essential to good oratory. But it should be used with good judgment. I recently overhead a speaker who used parallel structure with terrible judgment.

The speaker was discussing two lawyers. Lawyer A was employed full-time by a corporation. Lawyer B was employed full-time by a law firm. The speaker referred to Lawyer A as an in-house counsel.

I would have preferred the simpler phrase house counsel, but in-house counsel is acceptable. In an apparent effort to maintain parallel structure, though, the speaker then dropped his bomb:

Lawyer A was an in-house counsel and Lawyer B was an outhouse counsel.

The phrase outhouse counsel should never, ever be used to describe a lawyer—unless his or her practice focuses on outhouses.

A Dangerous Business

Fred Rodell was absolutely right about our profession's relationship with language:

Dealing in words is a dangerous business, and it cannot be too often stressed that what The Law deals in is words. Dealing in long, vague, fuzzy-meaning words is even more dangerous business, and most of the words The Law deals in are long and vague and fuzzy. Making a habit of applying long, vague, fuzzy, general words to specific things and facts is perhaps the most dangerous of all, and The Law does that, too.

Fred Rodell, Woe unto You, Lawyers! 39 (1939).

President Obama's Incredible Beatbox Performance

Hat tip to Veto Corleone.

Ivan Cameron

I was disappointed to learn that this week's Prime Minister's Questions had been canceled.

Then I learned why—the death of David Cameron's six-year-old son.

The heart-breaking New York Times article is here.

The Rapist Finder?

Internet addresses lack spaces, which can create miscues.

Somebody should have told Therapist Finder, California’s self-proclaimed “online resource for consumers searching for a marriage and family therapist.”

Their website—therapistfinder.com—can be read in two ways:

• Therapist Finder
• The Rapist Finder

Hat tip to Reddit.

Obama Has Appeal

In his Rhetoric, Aristotle identified three forms of persuasive discourse:

• Logos, the rational appeal, focusing on our ability to reason
  
• Pathos, the emotional appeal, focusing on our emotions
• Ethos, the ethical appeal, establishing the speaker as fair, open-minded, honest, and knowledgeable.

In last night's address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama used all three rhetorical tools.

He relied on rational appeal:

We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform. Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for.

He relied on emotional appeal:

You don’t need to hear another list of statistics to know that our economy is in crisis, because you live it every day. It’s the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It’s the job you thought you’d retire from but now have lost; the business you built your dreams upon that’s now hanging by a thread; the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the envelope.

And he relied on ethical appeal:

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't. Not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited -- I am.

Me, Myself, and I

Today's New York Times has an interesting op-ed about President Obama's trouble with pronouns.

Check it out!

"Don't Let Them Pee on Us Anymore"

When I think American politics couldn't be more crass, my Israeli friends provide a proper frame of reference.

Hat tip to design:related.

Course Language?

I recently wrote a short post that linked to President Obama swearing.

But—as a reader recently pointed out to me—I blundered my warning that the link contained (surprise!) swear words. I originally wrote:

If course language doesn't bother you, you'll enjoy this.

President Obama's language, though, would be course if he were talking about a route followed by a ship, aircraft, road, or river.

But he wasn't. He was dropping the F-bomb. His language was thus coarse: rude, crude, and vulgar.

Flaunt the Law!

My friend was recently researching model traffic codes from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. In the course of his research, he found this linguistic disaster in the Safe Streets Act:

Citizens who comply with the law are frequently victims of traffic accidents caused by those who continue to drive when their driver’s license is suspended or revoked. These innocent victims suffer considerable pain and property loss at the hands of people who flaunt the law.

Of course, to flaunt the law is display it conspicuously, defiantly, and boldly, as if it were a 1976 Impala with 26-inch wheels.

To flout the law is to show contempt for it.

Ginned Up

During his first prime-time press conference, President Obama said something peculiar:

I love this notion that somehow I came in here just ginned up to spend $800 billion. That wasn't how I envisioned my presidency beginning.

His odd phrase, ginned up, really caught my ear. In fact, it drew my attention away from the extreme quantity of money that the President was proposing to spend. (I wonder if this was by design.)

At first, I thought President Obama's being ginned up might have something to do with his fiscal inhibitions being lowered by an excess of alcoholic drink, particularly gin.

Then I though it might have something to do with a cotton gin.

When I tried to look up the phrase in the New Oxford American Dictionary (2d ed. 2005), though, the phrase wasn't there.

Ginned up is also missing from other large dictionaries:

• Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989)
• Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (1961)
• The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2d ed. 1987)
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000)

But I got the answer from Bryan Garner.

The phrase means to rev up (as an engine) and comes from a clipping of engine. See Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage 384 (2d ed. 2003).

2009 State of the Union?

As a student of classical rhetoric—and a fan of Barack Obama—I'm disappointed that the President still hasn't given his State of the Union address.

With February drawing to a close, I'm starting to wonder whether the 2009 State of the Union address is going to happen.

Of course, Article II of the Constitution doesn't require an annual address.

Perhaps President Obama considers the yearly speech part of the “tired, old ways of Washington” and instead prefers stumping at Caterpillar factories. But I hope not!

A Thousand Words: War Is Coming into People's Houses

Anthony Suau has won the top prize in the 2008 World Press Photo of the Year for his photograph of an armed sheriff moving through a foreclosed house.

Jury chair MaryAnne Golon said:

The strength of the picture is in its opposites. It's a double entendre. It looks like a classic conflict photograph, but it is simply the eviction of people from a house following foreclosure. Now war in its classic sense is coming into people's houses because they can't pay their mortgages.

You can see the other 2008 World Press Photo winners here.

Dave Camp Is Literally Blind

As we all know, literally means in “in a literal or strict sense.”

Figuratively, on the other hand, means “involving a figure of speech.”

This morning, Dave Camp, who represents the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, was on NPR. He was kvetching about Democratic strong-arm tactics:

This process has been so rushed and so one-sided that we are literally flying blind.

Rep. Camp was not literally flying. Nor was he literally blind. But he is the sort of person who, after hearing a good joke, would tell you that he literally died.

You can verify that I am not misquoting Rep. Camp here.

Quick Language Tip: Continual? Continuous?

I recently overhead two people talking about President Obama. One of them offered this commentary:

I mean, it's like he's still campaigning. He's continuously giving press interviews.

President Obama, though, is not continuously giving press interviews. If he were, he would be wiped out: continuously means without ceasing. Although our new president has quite a bit of stamina, I don't think he can give press interviews for three weeks without stopping.

Continually, on the other hand, means recurring frequently.

Thus, the president is continually—not continuously—speaking with the press.

If you're having a hard time remembering which word means what, Bryan Garner has a terrific mnemonic device: just think of the last three letters in continuous, i.e., O-U-S, as standing for one uninterrupted sequence.

Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage 193 (2d ed. 2003).

Coloring Books, Especially Now?

I recently wrote about the U.S. Lawyer-Presidents Coloring and Activity Book, arguing that one of its promotional blurbs is racially tone-deaf.

Now, I notice that the latest issue of the ABA Journal (page twenty-five) has a full-page ad for the coloring book. And the ad contains an intriguing sales pitch:

Law firms will want to purchase the book in bulk for their employees—especially now.

Without any discussion of the historic nature of Barack Obama's election, the reader is left wondering why now is an especially good time to buy the book—in bulk—for employees.

Here's one theory: billable hours are way down, and the associates need something to keep them busy.

I realize that this theory is not particularly strong, but it could have been entirely averted by copy like this:

Law firms will want to purchase the book in bulk for their employees' children—especially in light of Barack Obama's historic election as America's forty-fourth president.

Yearbook Pictures

Veto Corleone has a terrific post of politicians' yearbook photos. Check it out!

"Put Me in His Voicebox"

I recently overhead this actual conversation:

• Lawyer: Can I speak with Mr. Snow?
• Receptionist: He's not in right now.
• Lawyer: Then put me into his voice box.

Lawyers shouldn't go into anybody's voice box. The larynx is a delicate structure! But it's fine for lawyers to go into somebody's voicemail.

When lawyers confuse voice box and voicemail, though, they sound silly.

There Are White Folks, and Then There Are . . .

I thought I'd follow up my last race-language post with another one.

If coarse language doesn't bother you, you'll enjoy this. April Winchell has collected the choicest swear words from the audiobook version of Dreams from My Father and made them into mp3 clips.

There's something quite startling about hearing the President of the United States say, “There are white folks, and then there are ignorant [despicable people] like you.”

Some Are More Colorful Than Others

The American Bar Association just published a new U.S. Lawyer-Presidents Coloring and Activity Book. The ABA presumably revised the coloring book to include President Obama, who features prominently on the cover and in advertising (Now includes Barack Obama!).

As I do with most things that interest me, I googled this story. And that's when I came across imprudent language that I'll share with you.

I'm certain that Mike McCurry—a former White House press secretary—understands that words matter. And I'm certain he will agree that, because America just inaugurated its first black president, language that once was innocuous can now come across as bigoted. That's why Mr. McCurry's promotional blurb for the coloring book shocked me:

Here are our Presidents, some more colorful than others, but we can learn about them as we fill in the blanks.

What?!? Some are more colorful than others? Really?

I'm not saying that Mr. McCurry's remark reveals any racial animosity. And I'm not saying that Mr. McCurry carries any racial animosity toward the President or anybody else.

But his remark is still a careless linguistic blunder—not the sort of thing I'd expect from a former press secretary.

Using Em Dashes Like the New York Times Editorial Board

Lawyers often insert incidental remarks into their prose. And they usually use commas to do so:

Mr. Smith argues on appeal, for the first time, that the statute of limitations does not apply to him.

Occasionally, lawyers instead use parentheses:

Mr. Smith argues on appeal (for the first time) that the statute of limitations does not apply to him.

Both of these practices are fine. But most lawyers never even consider a third possibility: em dashes.

That's a shame, because em dashes create a substantial break in the sentence, and thus draw attention to the incidental remark.

In fact, em dashes are often better than italics for drawing emphasis to key words. Just look at how our example reads with em dashes:

Mr. Smith argues on appeal—for the first time—that the statute of limitations does not apply to him.

In this sentence, the incidental remark really stands out.

Em dashes are quite powerful, so it's no surprise that they were all over yesterday's New York Times editorial page. The editorial board used em dashes to highlight the Constitution State's dismal record of corrupt public officials:

Mr. Perez is the latest in a string of Connecticut officials—among them a governor, a state senator, a state treasurer and several mayors—who have been arrested for corruption in the last decade.

The editorial board used em dashes to underscore the extravagance of riding a limousine everywhere:

Only after the Obama transition team flagged unrelated tax issues that would require filing amended returns did Mr. Daschle and his accountant address the need to report the personal use value of the car service—more than $255,000 over three years—as income.

Even op-ed contributor John Bolton got in on the action, using em dashes to emphasize that Saddam Hussein was a threat to regional stability:

Mr. Hussein defended his repressive regime—and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction—in the name of protecting Arab nations from Iran.

Practicing lawyers, on the other hand, almost never use em dashes. But they should.

Cool Business Cards

I realize that lawyers can't be hipsters.

And I realize that business cards are no longer an essential business accoutrement.

But I still can't help being blown away by elegant business cards.

That's why I thought I'd let you know about a new site that showcases great business card design. It's called Card Observer. You should check it out.

Quick Language Tip: Lead? Led?

The past tense and past participle of the verb to lead is led.

Not lead.

So it's correct to write:

Last year, Charlie led the league in rebounds.

And it's incorrect to write:

Last year, Charlie lead the league in rebounds.

I Heart the New Oxford American Dictionary

I recently ordered the second edition of the New Oxford American Dictionary. Yesterday, it arrived at work. I already love this dictionary!

If you don't yet have a terrific dictionary at your desk, I highly recommend the NOAD.

Here are just a few reasons why I think it's so good.

Core Sense & Subsense

My previous dictionary just listed definitions of a given word, without distinguishing between the myriad entries. But the NOAD distinguishes between the word's core sense and subsense. A core sense is the meaning accepted by native speakers as the one that is most established as literal and central. For example, a core sense of bag is “a container . . . used for carrying things.”

A subsense is a related sense of the word. A subsense of bag, for example, is “an amount held by such a container: a bag of apples.”

The NOAD method of organization makes sense to me.

Sensible Specialist Vocabulary

Like many large dictionaries, the NOAD has lots of special subjects. Here are just a few:

• Fashion
• Food
• Military
• Mathematics
• Chemistry
• Religion
  

But unlike other dictionaries, the NOAD defines specialist vocabulary in a way that the general reader can understand. For example, the NOAD provides the technical definition of benzopyrene: “a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.” But the NOAD also tells its readers that benzopyrene is “a compound that is the major carcinogen present in cigarette smoke.”

The latter is exactly what the general reader, like me, would want to know about benzopyrene.

Usage Notes

Although the sensible writer has a stand-alone usage guide at his or her desk, the NOAD's usage notes are a useful adjunct.

Easy Pronunciation Key

The NOAD uses a simple pronunciation key. And it includes the key on every odd-numbered page. So you will never need to flip back and forth between the pronunciation key and entry to figure out how to pronounce a word. This is a very nice touch.

Authoritativeness & Reasonable Price

The NOAD has Oxford in its title; I would feel comfortable citing it. Amazon has used copies available for eighteen dollars.

Misunfortunate?

I recently overheard this actual converation:

Person 1: Hey! How are you?

Person 2: Not so good. I had a bad morning.

Person 1: Oh, how misunfortunate.

This unique word—misunfortunate—really caught my ear. It combines misfortune and unfortunate to create a word that I hope does not catch on.

The Words Dance Before My Eyes

I recently read a wonderful Learned Hand law review article.

And in so doing, I came across something that I know my readers will enjoy: Judge Hand's confession that he struggled to understand the tax code.

Hand's words are perceptive and beautiful:

[T]he words . . . dance before my eyes in a meaningless procession: cross-reference to cross-reference, exception upon exception—couched in abstract terms that offer no handle to seize hold of—leave in my mind only a confused sense of some vitally important, but successfully conealed, purport, which it is my duty to extract, but which is within my power, if at all, only after the most inordinate expenditure of time.

Judges Should Be Disinterested, Not Uninterested

I occasionally hear lawyers use disinterested and uninterested interchangeably, but these two words are not quite the same.

A disinterested person has no personal interest in the outcome of a dispute. But the uninterested person is indifferent about the dispute.

As Mr. Garner puts it, “Judges should be disinterested in carrying out their responsibilities, but never uninterested.”

Bryan A. Garner, The Elements of Legal Style 111 (2d ed. 2002).

The Iconic Photographs of George W. Bush

I've written about my love of great political photography:

Photographers often put writers—particularly legal writers—to shame. In contrast to us lawyers, they express complex ideas with brevity, style, and emotional richness. I'm jealous.

In The New York Times, Errol Morris has a terrific piece in which he interviews the head photo editors at the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, and Thompson Reuters.

Mr. Morris has the photo editors select, and discuss, photographs that they believe capture the character of George W. Bush and his administration. The results are amazing.

No Obamanation?

Usually, I enjoy the five-second amusement that bumper stickers provide:

• Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
• Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
• A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

But some bumper stickers make no sense.

I recently encountered one that read No Obamanation. This odd phrase has many possible meanings:

• It is not an abomination that Barack Obama is the President of the United States. Ergo, No Obamanation!
  
• It is an abomination that Barack Obama is the President of the United States. We detest such vile, shameful conditions. And we therefore cry out, No Obamanation!
• The entire electorate didn't vote for Barack Obama. In fact, a lot of Americans voted for the other guy. Thus—despite liberal arguments to the contrary—our nation is not an Obama nation. Ergo, No Obamanation!

I cannot resolve the sticker's meaning without resorting to Google. And I spent fifteen minutes thinking it over. That's too much time to spend thinking about the real meaning of a bumper sticker!

The Vampires of Legal Writing

At The (New) Legal Writer, Raymond Ward has a great post about legal forms that refuse to die. Check it out!

Quick Language Tip: Historic? Historical?

I recently overheard a colleague talking about President Obama's inaugural. She was discussing how momentous the occasion was:

The event was historical.

Her use of historical sounded wrong to me. I thought that she should have said:

The event was historic.

But when I thought it over, I couldn't come up with any good reason for my preference for historic. And I see historical used all the time, e.g., the American Historical Society.

When I consulted my reference books, though, I learned that I was right: my colleague should have used historic.

• An event that makes history is historic. Momentous happenings or developments are historic.
• On the other hand, historical means “of or relating to or occurring in history.”

See Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage 407-08 (2d ed. 2003).

So it makes sense that the umbrella organization for historians is called the American Historical Society. And it makes sense to refer to President Obama's inauguration as historic.

Chief Justice Roberts and Split Verbs

Chief Justice Roberts should have administered the presidential oath as:

. . . solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States.

Instead, Chief Justice Roberts—on the fly—changed the oath into:

. . . solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.

Steven Pinker has a terrific op-ed in today's New York Times. In his op-ed, Professor Pinker shares the reason for Chief Justice Roberts's edit to the presidential oath: the justice's disdain for split verbs.

The “rule” against split verbs is, of course, rooted in an inapt analogy to Latin. Therefore, I share Professor Pinker's hope that President Obama will be more independent-minded in the coming years:

President Obama, whose attention to language is obvious in his speeches and writings, smiled at the chief justice’s hypercorrection, then gamely repeated it.

Let’s hope that during the next four years he will always challenge dogma and boldly lead the nation in new directions.

Of course, Chief Justice Roberts would render that last sentence as:

Let’s hope that during the next four years he will challenge dogma always and lead the nation boldly in new directions.

Writers & Readers: Wordly

Connecticut people, are you going to this? If so, send me an e-mail; we can meet up and sit together.

New President, New White House Website

It seems every law blog has something to say about President Obama's oath recitation or inaugural address.

My colleagues have covered the field quite thoroughly, and I can't offer much fresh insight. So I thought I would point out a little-discussed change that President Obama has brought to Washington: a new White House website.

The redesigned site is quite elegant. I really like it!

Hat tip to design:related.

A Fortress out of the Dictionary

I recently came across a terrific Learned Hand quotation that I thought I would share with you:

It is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary.

Cabell v. Markham, 148 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir. 1945).

The Pilsners of the Democratic Electorate?

This month's cover of The Atlantic asks an intriguing question: The End of White America?

In his feature article, Marc Ambinder writes about the Obama campaign's simultaneous efforts to court white and black voters. What most struck me about this article was not Mr. Ambinder's analysis of the campaign's racial tightrope-walking, but his intriguing beer reference:

The Obama campaign faced a fundamental challenge: it had to make those pilsners of the Democratic electorate—true independents, Reagan Democrats, and working-class whites—culturally comfortable with Obama while simulta­neously increasing African American participation.

The pilsners of the Democratic electorate?

I asked a friend—who is well-versed in beer—what this phrase might mean. We came up with two leading theories.

First, pilsner could simply refer to voters who drink lager beer, e.g., Budweiser. Although I have not done any research on the matter, I suspect that this cohort has a lower income and lower educational level than ale-drinkers.

Second, pilsner could refer to the characteristics of pilsner beer: pale, light, mild-flavored. Thus, the pilsners of the Democratic electorate lack the full-tilt progressive flavor of core Democratic voters.

My suspicion is that Mr. Ambinder had both of these meanings in mind.

But if you want to argue with me about this, over a lager or ale, let me know!

Magged?

A week ago, I watched President-Elect Obama's interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. During the interview, Mr. Stephanopoulos asked President-Elect Obama if the first family had found a new church yet.

Obama replied, “You don't want to subject your fellow church members, the rest of the congregation, to being magged every time you go to church.”

At the time, I though that Obama must have meant mugged or perhaps mobbed.

But I was wrong. Obama meant magged.

At The Word, Jan Freeman explains the meaning of magged:

“[W]alking through metal detectors.” Logical enough, as slang goes, since metal detectors work by generating a magnetic field.

Quick Language Tip: Enormity? Enormousness?

I recently heard somebody talking about the enormity of President Barack Obama's inaugural address. The speaker seemed quite pro-Obama, so his word choice perplexed me.

Enormity means “something outrageous or heinous.”

On the other hand, enormousness, means “immensity, hugeness.”

I don't think this speaker intended to call out President Obama's speech as evil. He probably just thought that enormity means enormousness.

But it doesn't.

Legal Writing That Caused to Be Commenced an Agitation in Me

I recently came across this long-winded lawyerism:

The company then caused to be commenced an investigation.

Why lawyers can't write simply is beyond me. How about this:

The company investigated.

This simple edit reduces the words from nine to three. It reduces the syllables from sixteen to nine.

And it shows respect for the reader.

The Inaugural Address

The New York Times has an interesting article about President-Elect Obama’s upcoming inaugural address. It has advice from four heavyweights:

• William Safire (President Richard Nixon's speechwriter and language maven)
  
• Jeff Shesol (President Bill Clinton's speechwriter)
• Mary Kate Cary (President George H.W. Bush's speechwriter)
• Gordon Stewart (President Jimmy Carter's speechwriter)

Mr. Shesol is absolutely right when he notes that Obama needs no pointers:

President Obama will give a great speech — well-crafted, well-delivered, well-received. There can’t be much doubt about that.

Or, as Mr. Stewart puts it:

[G]iving advice to Barack Obama, who thinks and writes with a sense of direction we have not seen since F.D.R., is like giving pointers to Michael Jordan or Vladimir Horowitz.

But the article still makes for great reading. Mr. Stewart’s four rules of inaugural addresses are clever and true:

1. Praise the country and its people as God’s gift to the rest of humanity.
2. Extol the peaceful transition of power as though not having a coup was a miracle.
3. Thank the predecessor at the outset, and then trash his administration for 20 minutes.
4. Declare the end of partisanship, a vow that in the age of cable-Internet-talk radio will last less than 10 minutes.
   

Tested Dialectical Weapons

I think I've found the best Justice Jackson quote of all time:

[The advocate] will stock the arsenal of his mind with tested dialectical weapons. He will master the short Saxon word that pierces the mind like a spear and the simple figure that lights the understanding. He will never drive the judge to the dictionary. He will rejoice in the strength of the mother tongue as found in the King James version of the Bible, and in the power of the terse and flashing phrase of a Kipling or a Churchill.

Robert H. Jackson, Advocacy Before the United States Supreme Court, 37 Cornell L.Q. 1 (1951).

“Is This a Conyers Law?”

Yesterday's New York Times has a wonderful Adam Liptak article about Harbison v. Bell, a Supreme Court case concerning whether the federal government must pay for state clemency proceedings.

I love how Mr. Liptak uses a short oral argument excerpt to show his readers tension on the bench:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer observed that Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, had said he understood the [relevant federal] law to apply to state clemency proceedings.

“I thought this was a federal law,” said Justice Scalia, who is hostile to judicial consideration of legislators’ statements in determining what laws mean. “Is this a Conyers law?”

Justice Breyer responded, “He happens to be the person who wrote it.”

Justice Scalia continued to interrogate Justice Breyer as Mr. Jay, representing the government, looked on.“Did his colleagues know what he said?” Justice Scalia asked.“Yes, they did,” Justice Breyer responded.

Chief Justice Roberts stepped in. “Counsel, you lead,” he said to Mr. Jay. “We direct our questions to counsel.”

Very Mediocre?

I recently overhead this conversation:

Lawyer 1: Did you finish that motion yet?
Lawyer 2: No, but I'm working on it.
Lawyer 1: When will it be done?
Lawyer 2: Right now, it's very mediocre. But I could probably have it cleaned up and ready to go by two o'clock.

Lawyer 2's use of the phrase very mediocre struck me. I thought that mediocre meant “of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad.” I also thought that mediocre was derived from the Latin adjective mediocris, which I though meant “in a middle state.” Thus, the phrase very mediocre struck me as self-contradictory, because very means “extremely.”

If the speaker meant mediocre in the mediocris sense, it probably would have better simply to say:

• Right now, it's uninspired.
• Right now, it's pedestrian.
• Right now, it's undistinguished.

Each of these sentences can accommodate the insertion of very, if it's really necessary.

Of course, the omission of very would also rectify the original sentence:

• Right now, it's mediocre.

But when I quickly googled “very mediocre,” I didn't find any rants about this odd phrase. And I checked an online dictionary (my real dictionary is at work), which provides a second definition for mediocre: “rather poor or inferior.”

I then felt like a finger-waving prig. My suspicion, though, is that people misused the word so much that its definition changed.