I’m not sure that you’d call it a phrase or a figure of speech, or even a writing tick. But please, please, we must ban the following from our writings: “I myself would never…”; “She herself denied…”; “We ourselves acknowledge…”
I get it! You are yourself. She is herself. We are ourselves. I am no David Remnick, but if I were I’d start a campaign to combat this repetitive, redundant (get it?) language. To me this is the equivalent of running one’s nails over a chalkboard. I cringe every time I see it. And what’s worse, this language is pervasive–I see some of my favorite writers do it in some of my favorite newspapers and magazines. Now this of course instills in me some doubt, that maybe this sort of language is perfectly acceptable or even proper. But it can’t be. Can it?
____
Anyway, some good reads:
1) Turns out HUD is a highly wasteful and has poor oversight. Wait, a government agency that’s wasteful and incompetent? You don’t say. http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-pattern-of-hud-projects-stalled-or-abandoned/2011/03/14/AFWelh3G_story.html?hpid=z1
2) Adrew Ross Sorkin asks us to rethink “Rich.” $250,000 just ain’t what it used to be. (And may not be the right level to start raising taxes.) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/weekinreview/15tax250copy.html?ref=todayspaper
Note: 1) I work with HUD fairly often and I have seen evidence of tremendous inefficiencies and flutters of incompetence at certain levels. But HUD provides good services and support for many elderly and indigent people who rely on their funding. I offer this article in no way to promote HUD bashing, but rather in hopes that this issue gets daylight and the agency cleans up its act.
What I'm Reading Today 