Can this sentence, from the New York Times article on the DeLay conviction, be read as anything other than evidence of the collapse of journalism, and hence of language, and hence of civilization?
To be guilty of money laundering, the prosecution had to show the money had been obtained through an illegal activity before it was laundered.
They succeeded in showing that, so I guess that means the prosecution is guilty of money laundering.
This is the frigging NYTimes! Are there no editors sharp-eyed enough to change “To be guilty of …” to “To prove …” ? Predicates need subjects! Otherwise they run wild and incriminate innocent people.
Update: Commenter GD provides the necessary transit angle on this story:
William Safire is rotating in his grave. The question now is how to harness that energy and power rail transit with it 😉
Happy Thanksgiving to American readers. If you had to fly in the USA yesterday, I hope it was stimulating.