Mission Accomplished

[FactorEyes]

Originally Posted by davieddy

If this isn't a shining example of how to turn a snappy
timely thread into a tedious unreadable diatribe I don't know what is.

David

Thanks -- my pleasure!

[davieddy]

(To the last three posts)

I'll go to Bridgebase online.
Timing is everything there.

[ewmayer]

Harvard psychology professor Stephen Pinker weighs in on Tuesday`s fumbling of the Presidential swearing-in verbiage, and sheds new light on the real reason behind the doomed marriage of Britain`s Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the same go:

Oaf of Office

IN 1969, Neil Armstrong appeared to have omitted an indefinite article as he stepped onto the moon and left earthlings puzzled over the difference between “man” and “mankind.” In 1980, Jimmy Carter, accepting his party’s nomination, paid homage to a former vice president he called Hubert Horatio Hornblower. A year later, Diana Spencer reversed the first two names of her betrothed in her wedding vows, and thus, as Prince Charles Philip supposedly later joked, actually married his father.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Flubber Hall of Fame when he administered the presidential oath of office apparently without notes. Instead of having Barack Obama “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,” Chief Justice Roberts had him “solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.” When Mr. Obama paused after “execute,” the chief justice prompted him to continue with “faithfully the office of president of the United States.” (To ensure that the president was properly sworn in, the chief justice re-administered the oath Wednesday evening.)

How could a famous stickler for grammar have bungled that 35-word passage, among the best-known words in the Constitution? Conspiracy theorists and connoisseurs of Freudian slips have surmised that it was unconscious retaliation for Senator Obama’s vote against the chief justice’s confirmation in 2005. But a simpler explanation is that the wayward adverb in the passage is blowback from Chief Justice Roberts’s habit of grammatical niggling. [More]

My Comment: How dare you, sir, introduce such a vile racist tenor into an otherwise excellent editorial, by referring to Chief Justice Roberts (who is white in any event) as a "niggler?" Appalling, simply appalling.