It’s free rein; not free reign (the NYT might have fixed it by the time it appears here).
But, while acknowledging that Times columnists appropriately have very free reign in choosing subject matter and commenting on it as they see fit, I am troubled by the same questions raised here by Dr. Rasmussen.
February 3rd, 2014 at 4:55PM
QEII — the woman, not the boat – has rather better than a free reign. Moving somewhat sideways, I find the half-rhyming possibilities for chickens delightful.
February 3rd, 2014 at 7:17PM
Free reign chickens. Love it.
February 6th, 2014 at 11:07AM
Would an editor even know these days?
From Washington Post, David Igatious, last night/this morning:
Privacy advocates would argue that any dangers ahead are the fault of the pervasive surveillance systems of the National Security Agency, rather than Snowden’s revelation of them. I’ll leave that chicken-and-egg puzzle for historians. *But it begs the question* of how to prevent the anti-NSA backlash from shattering the relatively free and open Internet that has transformed the world — and which the NSA (and other security services) exploited.
I don’t mind off-label usages when, say, irony is clear. But I hate it when really helpful distinctions get obliterated. Buddy can you spare a tentative premise we can then imagine as somehow self-validated.