TIL that some languages apparently have words inherently differentiating one's status as a citizen or resident of the entity versus a member of a particular ethnic or cultural group? I don't quite grasp the whole thing, although I heard the point being made. What's interesting to me is a) that there is such a thing, which seems very revealing of something about a culture that would need such concepts built into the language, and b) that there seem to be people who think it's inaccurate to interpret the word choice as meaningful. Firstly, since languages have all sorts of concepts built into them, many very specific to their primary culture of use, it seems reasonable that such a thing could exist. Not that I would have thought of it before, since I'm not from a culture where that sort of subtlety functions. Secondly, if that is, indeed, the subtlety of the word choices, where one essentially and inherently includes people, and the other excludes, then I'd kind o...
Ninja'd!
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what to think about this.
In general, I agree that Comey needed to be fired. He deliberately put his finger on the election to weight it towards Trump. It doesn't matter that he might now regret it, consequences were needed for that.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, this is so very Nixonesque of firing anyone that looks into Trump, that the firing really looks like retaliation. I might not like Comey, but at least he finally started looking into the Russia connection.
Pair this with Yates firing around when she was talking prosecution for Russia dealings, and this smells worse than a pig rotting in heat for a week.