The Chocolate Interrobang

Let the government define?

2009-07-08T17:17:00.000-07:00

It's up the Bush Administration,and now the Obama Administration to define words, and NPR's ( & other "journalists") job to adopt those definitions unchallenged? Sheez!!! She actually said that!? Had to listen to it twice, to make sure I heard that.

Re the latest proposed travesty, (as I said back in '01) somebody should inform these depraved a-holes that Kafka didn't intend to write a #!&^#@!!! how-to manual.

-- mikeinportc

Permalink Wednesday, July 8, 2009 12:11 PM

The above comment appeared in a comment thread which accompanies a typically hard-hitting Greenwald post. I was inspired to respond that perhaps we should parody an "official" government-sponsored dictionary.

Please feel free to add the most odious and officious definitions and euphemisms that you have heard of-- or are willing to invent-- in the comments here.

Salon Letter Filter Script

2009-04-04T13:23:00.000-07:00

For those who have been unable to install the Salon Letter Filter Greasemonkey script from the link to the file, here is the text of the script. To install, copy everything between BEGIN CODE and END CODE into a text file (do not copy BEGIN CODE and END CODE). Name the text file salonletterfilter.user.js and save it. Open the file in your browser (you can drag and drop). If Greasemonkey is installed and active, when you open the file a Greasemonkey dialog will appear asking if you want to install the script. Click on install.

IMPORTANT: Your file name must end with .user.js for Greasemonkey to recognize it as a user script.

Do not panic if it appears that the lines of code end in midair on the blog page. It is all there even if it doesn't display because of the Blogger page layout. Simply select the code, copy it, and paste it into a new text file. Notepad or some other fairly simple text editor is recommended for this.

BEGIN CODE
//
//          MANUAL CONFIGURATION REQUIRED
//
// To configure the letters filter, you must have a "killfile" variable configured.
// A template for this variable is given below.  The "killfile" varable includes a 
// comma-delimited string of the nyms of the authors that you wish to filter out.
// A sample "killfile variable configuration looks like:
//
//            new String(killfile = 'author1,author2,author3');
// or
//            new String(killfile = 'author');
//
// Simply replace the word "authors" in the template below with the nyms of the authors you
// wish to expunge, each one separated by a comma, and save the file.
// Entries are case insensitive. Since the "killfile" will become a regular expression,
// regular expression metacharacters (such as "." or "+") appearing in a nym should be
// preceded by a backslash ("\"; e.g., 'L\.W\.M\.') in order to work properly.
//
   new String(killfile = 'authors');
   if (killfile.length == 0) exit;
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// This is a Greasemonkey user script.
//
// To install, you need Greasemonkey: http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
// Then restart Firefox and revisit this script.
// Under Tools, there will be a new menu item to "Install User Script".
// Accept the default configuration and install.
//
// To uninstall, go to Tools/Manage User Scripts,
// select "Letter_Filter", and click Uninstall.
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// ==UserScript==
// @name          Salon Letter filter
// @author        Frankly, my dear, ...
// @namespace     http://language-grammar.blogspot.com/2009/04/filter-for-salon-letters.html
// @description   Filter letters from Salon. WARNING: manual configuration required. Before use you must edit the script and enter your "killfile" in the string variable near the top of the script.
// @include       http://letters.salon.com/*
// @version       0.0.1
// ==/UserScript==

//
//  Set debug to 1 to see debug output in Javascript console
//
var debug = 1;


// 
// Only print information to console if debug is on
//
function myGM_log(args) {
  if (debug == 1) {
    GM_log(args);
  }
}


//
// Shortcut function to evalute an XPath in the document
//
function xpath(query, sourceDoc) {
  return document.evaluate(query, sourceDoc, null, XPathResult.ORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE, null);
}

myregexp = new RegExp(killfile.replace(/, */g, "|"), "i");
myGM_log(myregexp);
var allLets, thisLet, allAuthors, thisAuthor, allFooters, thisFooter;
allLets = xpath("//li[@class='letter_node']",document);
allAuthors = xpath("//div[@class='letter_entry_author'] | //div[@class='letter_entry_author premium']",document);
allFooters = xpath("//div[@class='letter_entry_footer']",document);
for (var i = 0; i < allLets.snapshotLength; i++) {
 thisLet = allLets.snapshotItem(i);
 thisAuthor = allAuthors.snapshotItem(i);
 thisFooter = allFooters.snapshotItem(i);
 var author = thisAuthor.innerHTML;
 if (myregexp.test(author)) {
  mymatch = myregexp.exec(author);
  thisLet.innerHTML = "<h3><b>Letter from " + mymatch + " deleted</h3></b>" +    thisFooter.innerHTML +"<hr>";
  //thisLet.innerHTML = "";
 }
}
END CODE

A Filter for Salon Letters

2009-04-03T05:29:00.000-07:00

In view of the vitriolic and acerbic nature of the comment section of Glenn's recent postings at UT, many commenters have asked for a filter to remove certain authors' letters from the comment thread. It got so bad, that one commenter was ready to kill:

Baring that, I'd kill for a "ignore" or "filter" option. At least that way I can completely skip the crap and not waste the time and bytes downloading text I'm not going to read.
— KB4Hire

At the time, I said that I was too busy to take the necessary steps to produce such a filter, but this is the kind of simple programming task that I just can't pass up. So I brushed up my javascript and read a book on Greasemonkey and then wasted a day of my life writing a Q&D^® filter to remove letters from specified authors from comments pages. It turns out it was about as simple as I predicted. And while it doesn't save on downloading, because you have to download the letters before you check and eliminate them, it does mean that you don't have to read the vitriol and invective that some people seem to be incapable of excluding from their writing. This will be a boon to those with peptic ulcers and high blood pressure.

The file is salonletterfilter.user.js, and, if you already have the Greasemonkey add-on for Firefox installed and active, it can be installed simply by clicking on the file name and selecting "Install" when the Greasemonkey dialog panel appears. If you don't already have Greasemonkey, install it by clicking on the link. If you're using Internet Explorer, eat your heart out.

Note that there is some manual configuration necessary to make the script functional. After installing the script, open the Greasemonkey "Manage User Scripts" dialog either by right-clicking on the Greasemonkey icon in the status bar at the bottom of your browser window or from the browser's "Tools" menu. Once the dialog panel is open, select "Salon Letter Filter" and click on "Edit". This will open the script in your designated text editor. Then go to the first line of the script that is not a comment (i.e., does not begin with "//") and replace the word "authors" with your kill list. Use a comma to separate individual authors if you want to exclude more than one author. Save the file, and the next time you open a Salon letters page, letters from the authors listed in "killfile" will be deleted.

The configured version is fairly "polite" in that it leaves behind a notice that a letter from a particular author has been deleted, the permalink to the message (as an icon) and the datestamp. As a less polite option, there is also a more vicious version that removes letters completely. To implement this, edit the script and in the last line of the code (//thisLet.innerHTML = "";) delete the "//" at the beginning. Unwanted letters will disappear without a trace.

You can, of course, retrieve deleted letters by editing the "killfile" variable at any time. And there is no need to uninstall the script if you no longer wish to have a killfile. Simply set the variable "killfile" to an empty string ('') and the script will stop. The only thing to keep in mind is that the "killfile" variable is used to create a regular expression so regular expression metacharacters have to have a backslash ("\") in front of them for the script to work properly.

[Disclaimer: No warranty, expressed or implied, is associated with this script. The use of this script is entirely at the user's risk. This offer void where prohibited by law.]

The Earnestness of being Important

2009-03-19T11:40:00.000-07:00

Twice in the current month a poster at UT has criticized Glenn's use of sentence initial "most importantly", insisting, rather pedantically, that the "correct" form is "most important":

Usage

"Importantly" means "in an important manner." Thus, the phrase "most important" should replace your frequent "most importantly."
Monday, March 9, 2009 11:00 AM

and

Usage

Glenn writes:

UPDATE II: Rather oddly, the NYT article I quoted above, by David Herzsenhorn, has been moved on the NYT site and is now at this link (see here). Most importantly, it has been re-written to reflect that fact that it was not Dodd who inserted the exception for past contracts:

"Importantly" means "in an important manner." The correct form is: "Most important, it has been rewritten..."
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 02:38 AM

However, despite the poster's certainty about the "correct" usage, the issue is not so clear-cut:

Usage note:
Both more important and more importantly occur at the beginning of a sentence in all varieties of standard English: More important (or More importantly), her record as an administrator is unmatched. Today, more importantly is the more common, even though some object to its use on the grounds that more important is an elliptical form of “What is more important” and that the adverb importantly could not occur in such a construction. More importantly probably developed by analogy with other sentence-modifying adverbs, as curiously, fortunately, and regrettably.
Based on the Random House Dictionary
Dictionary.com

Usage Note: Some critics have objected to the use of the phrase more importantly in place of more important when one introduces an assertion, as in More importantly, no one is ready to step into the vacuum left by the retiring senator. But both forms are widely used by reputable writers, and there is no obvious reason for preferring one or the other.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Dictionary.com

importantly, adv.
1. In an important manner or degree; weightily, momentously.
Now esp. common as a kind of sentence adverb preceded by more or most; in some contexts it is interchangeable with important and so has the function of a quasi-adj. Cf. IMPORTANT a. 4.

Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required)

important, a.
4. Preceded by more or most: used as a kind of sentence adjective. Cf. IMPORTANTLY adv. 1.
This construction is discussed in R. Quirk et al. Gram. Contemp. Eng. (1972) §5.26 (p. 255).

Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required)

Either the adjectival more/most important or the adverbial more/most importantly may serve as a sentence adverb; both are Standard in this use: More [Most] important [importantly], we now have the right answer.
Bartleby.com

A nice analysis of the usage was written by Evan Jenkins for the Language Corner blog of the Columbia Journalism Review, which is worth quoting extensively here:

Important/Importantly
Important ? Well, Interesting

By Evan Jenkins

Steve Parrott, associate director (later director) for university relations at the University of Iowa, e-mailed to ask, “Please consider a few words on ‘more important / more importantly.’ ”

Okay. Mr. Parrott had in mind sentences or clauses that begin with one of those phrases, like “Most importantly, the charges are tied directly to the original topic Mr. Starr was supposed to investigate.”

The short answer is that either form of the word is acceptable. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage (1994) has a lengthy and interesting (really) discussion of the longstanding argument (really) over important vs. importantly, with many citations, and concludes that “both are defensible grammatically and both are in respectable use.”

The tilt here, though, is toward “importantly.” The adverb can stand alone at the start of a sentence or clause — without “more” or “most” or any other modifier — and the adjective can’t.

Try it. Drop the “most” from the example quoted above; the sentence still works. Then, with “most” gone, drop the “ly” from “importantly”; the sentence no longer works.

(Some mindless aversion to “ly” adverbs at the start of a sentence — an extension of misguided rigidity about “importantly”? — must have been at work in the following sentence, since no human being ever spoke this way: “Not surprising, a variety of polls indicate...”)

The arguments for “most important” are strained, as an e-mail discussion with the freelance copy editor Christy Goldfinch of Fort Worth made clear.

“Important” commonly fails to modify any specific part of its sentence, so the adjective advocates contend that it can be understood to modify the whole thing — a “sentence adjective.” Well, “importantly” can certainly be called a “sentence adverb.”

But with “importantly” there’s no need for that dance. The adverb has an element to grab hold of within its sentence, the verb or the overall predicate. (And that, quite apart from any “sentence adverb” justification, makes the literalists’ objection to “hopefully” at the start of a sentence fallacious, as well as outmoded.)

Another argument for “most important” is that the phrase “What is” is understood to precede it. If that were a natural supposition, all sorts of adjectives (with modifiers) could start sentences. But “Most happy, the storm ended,” just doesn’t make it.

The “most” approach is acceptable (not preferable) with the one adjective “important” not on logical grounds but because it is widely used and well established. And in passages that start with modifiers ending in “ly” — “equally” comes to mind — using “important” is handy.

So the consensus is clear. Either more/most importantly or more/most important is acceptable, but it is fairly clear that more/most important is the interloper here. Sentence initials are frequently used as absolutes (i.e., they modify the entire sentence rather than any particular part of the sentence). Generally speaking, such absolutes are usually adverbial (in what manner, by what means). To use more/most important as a sentence initial it must be considered elliptical for (What is) more/most important (is the fact that) ....

Furthermore, 'importantly' is a synonym of 'significantly'. It is quite natural to say "More significantly, there is no other choice available" — considerably more natural than saying "More significant, there is no other choice available." Initial adverbials used as absolutes are quite common (e.g., "regrettably, curiously, surprisingly). One would never think of replacing them with an adjective:

Regrettably, his attempt failed.
*Regrettable, his attempt failed.
Curiously, no one was bothered by this.
*Curious, no one was bothered by this.
Surprisingly, the meeting was well attended.
*Surprising, the meeting was well attended.

even though doing so could be considered elliptical for (What is) regrettable/curious/surprising (is the fact that) ....

Extending this to more/most expressions completes the analogy:

Regrettably, his attempt failed. More regrettably, he died in the attempt.
*Regrettable, his attempt failed. *More regrettable, he died in the attempt.
Curiously, no one was bothered by this. More curiously, some were even pleased by it.
*Curious, no one was bothered by this. *More curious, some were even pleased by it.
Surprisingly, the meeting was well attended. More surprisingly, no one left before the end.
*Surprising, the meeting was well attended. *More surprising, no one left before the end.

Thus the elliptical "(What is) {adjective} (is the fact that)..." model is unnatural and there is no doubt that more/most importantly is the original usage and that more/most important is no more than an accepted interloper.

At last! A president whose sentences might be diagrammed....

2009-02-18T16:49:00.000-08:00

From Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post...

Something that most people - even his political opponents - agree on is that President Barack Obama is a fairly gifted orator. On those occasions when he speaks extemporaneously, he still struggles with vocalized pauses - those lengthy "Uhhmmms" and "Errrrrs" - but in general, he can compose articulate sentences and typically does fine work with a prepared speech.

But is GRAMMAR, itself, in the tank for Obama? Apparently so, and all it takes to reveal this truth is a trip back to the most hated part of your middle school education: sentence diagramming. [At left], blogger Garth Risk Hallberg diagrammed a sentence from Obama's recent press conference - coincidentally, his response to the question put to him by our own Sam Stein:

My view is also that nobody's above the law, and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that, generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.

You can read the rest of Linkin's post here, including some of Hallberg's analysis... the rest of Hallberg's post may be found here.

a new GOP-specific form of aphasia?

2009-02-11T16:41:00.000-08:00

The inimitable Bob Cesa, at the Huffington Post, has published a litany of examples of how the Republican Party is losing its mind, its logic, sense of syntax, etc. Of course, this should not be a surprise, given the past eight years, when their party's leader was one of the most linguistically challenged politicians within memory.

After giving dozens of examples of plain lunacy-- including a very strange Bushism that was completely new to me and I thought I'd heard them all-- Cesca concludes with the following:

They have indeed totally lost their shpadoinkle and despite purely involuntary spikes in my blood pressure, it's so much fun to watch. By successfully debunking their lies, rising above their bait and merely presenting a contrast of character, President Obama is making the Republican A-listers appear small, petty and absolutely befuddled. They're frantically struggling to figure out how to counterpunch, so they're grabbing, borrowing or downright plagiarizing ideas from anywhere, irrespective of the general quality of the idea. And if the Republicans are at all interested in continued survival, someone they respect should probably smack their hands and scold: Drop that filthy Limbaugh quote! You don't know where it's been! [emphasis is mine]

But if this is their "voice" and they're satisfied with it, I for one welcome the new Republican "voice" and wish them a hearty and very sincere: Good luck with that.

Proof in Japan that we have truly entered a new phase...

2009-01-23T12:24:00.000-08:00

We never could have expected to see a headline similar to this one during the Bush Years...

Japanese Use Obama's Speeches To Learn English

TOKYO — Aspiring English speakers in Japan have made President Barack Obama's book of speeches and accompanying CD a national best-seller.

In Aichi, central Japan, a Buddhist monk has reportedly been playing the president's speeches during his temple service. And dozens of students in an English-language class in Tokyo have been memorizing his 2004 Democratic Convention speech to improve their understanding and pronunciation.

Click here to read more.

Words

2008-12-06T21:26:00.000-08:00

Just discovered this site, Wordie, which has all sorts of interesting lists with words like louche and crepuscular, and comments like this one about the word rumored:

A highly unusual verb in Present-day English: it has only this one verb form. Although it was historically a full verb with all its parts ('Come hither Catesby, rumor it abroad, That Anne my Wife is very grieuous sicke.'—Richard III, IV.ii), for most of us today it can only be a past participle.

This raises the question of why it should be counted a verb at all, rather than an adjective: compare 'she was rumoured to be dead', 'she was keen/eager/reluctant to be dead': adjectives can take infinitival clause complements.

Well last night I found the answer, when I read this sentence opening Dorothy Parker's 'Mrs. Hoftstadter on Josephine Street':

That summer, the Colonel and I leased a bungalow named 947 West Catalpa Boulevard, rumored completely furnished: three forks, but twenty-four nutpicks.

'Completely furnished' is an adjective phrase (AdjP), and adjectives can't take AdjP complements, but verbs can: compare *'eager/easy/pleasant completely furnished' with 'considered completely furnished'. And indeed, on checking Google this morning, I find quite a few "was rumoured dead"—not the way I'd say it myself (I'd much prefer to add 'to be'), but common enough to prove it's verbal in Standard English. So, another discovery.

The Palin Challenge

2008-10-03T14:19:00.000-07:00

Since our masthead boasts that we “sometimes reminisce about diagramming sentences,” I thought when I came across an article by Kitty Burns Florey that outlines the perils of trying to diagram the classic Palin utterance that has become the hall- and mintmark of the vice-presidential candidate, that it was something to be shared here.

One really needs to read Ms Florey's article to get the background, but since she clearly asked for help at one point, it seems a worthwhile project to see if anyone has ideas of how to crack the Palin Challenge.

From Ms Florey:

Other Palinisms are not so tractable. From the Charlie Gibson interview:

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

I didn't stop to marvel at the mad thrusting of that pet political watchword "families" into the text. I just rolled up my sleeves and attempted to bring order out of the chaos:

I had to give up. This sentence is not for diagramming lightweights. If there's anyone out there who can kick this sucker into line, I'd be delighted to hear from you. To me, it's not English—it's a collection of words strung together to elicit a reaction, floating ands and prepositional phrases ("with that vote of the American people") be damned. It requires not a diagram but a selection of push buttons.

There you have it. Anyone who thinks he or she is up to the Palin Challenge is welcome to take a shot at it. Or, if anyone feels the urge to try to diagram any of Palin's other sentences, feel free. Who knows, it might become a growth industry.

Quotes of the week...

2008-07-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

from Don Eggen at The Washington Post:

Quote of the Week No. 1

"Well, you know, God bless him, bless his heart, the president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject, and for him to be challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."

-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), when asked by CNN about Bush's criticism of Congress

Quote of the Week No. 2

"And they have no disregard for human life."

-- President Bush, referring to enemy fighters in Afghanistan

Don't you just love the English language and all of its little idiosyncracies? I know I do.

the Myth of Centrism

2008-07-21T10:57:00.000-07:00

Definitions of centrism on the the web:

a political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of left and right by taking a moderate position or course of action
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
Any moderate political philosophy that avoids extremes

But, as George Lakoff knows, that center is something of a myth.

Jim White (noted UT commenter) attended Netroots 08, and shared with us in a post at AchievingOurCountry his experience at a session videotaped for DFA's night school. The session was based on work from Lakoff's latest book, The Political Mind.

Jim writes:

To illustrate the concept that there is not a linear scale, Lakoff holds up the brilliant example of Senators Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel. The popular press incessantly describes both as “centrists”, yet they share virtually no views. On social issues, Lieberman is consistently progressive and Hagel is solidly conservative. On the war, Lieberman is conservative and Hagel is progressive. They share views on nothing, yet both are branded as centrists. How can there be such a thing as a centrist, or a center, if these two agree on nothing?

And isn't it interesting how often we use words that are just as likely to be Reality-challenged as if they were everyday items? As if they were things that you can use and touch.

So, that mythic centrist space doesn't really exist, especially not as a spot in one-dimensional space. After all, in politics, even three dimensions can seem inadequate for describing what the hell is going on.

To Karen. Thanks.

2008-06-27T11:30:00.000-07:00

Thus far, with rough and all un-able pen,
Our bending author hath pursued the story,
In small room confining mighty men,
Mangling by starts the full course of their glory.
Small time ...

Reckless at Any Speech

2008-06-08T01:26:00.000-07:00

One commenter over at Daily Kos pointed out this sentence in John McCain's trainwreck of a speech Tuesday night:

I don’t oppose a reckless withdrawal from Iraq because I’m indifferent to the suffering war inflicts on too many American families.

While I would not characterize this sentence as a "major gaffe"—it's more like some loopy garden path sentence—(and this is, after all, John McCain, and the campaign has just begun), I somehow enjoy imagining, say, Dennis Steele in some ad, solemnly intoning:

John McCain: He said he was indifferent to the suffering that the Iraq War inflicts on many American families. And, therefore, he would not oppose even a reckless withdrawal from Iraq. John McCain. Reckless. Indifferent. That's not a leader we can believe in.

One might have hoped for some attempt at an elegant syncrisis—I don't oppose X because Y; I oppose X because…—but, well, that might have raised the question of what sort of withdrawal John McCain could support or, perhaps, if he could support any type of withdrawal at all.

I know what it says, but what does it mean?

2008-06-03T08:57:00.000-07:00

On the subject of rhetorical devices, here, by popular demand, is my vision of what the ultimate anti-McCain campaign ad would look like:

Actual news footage — McCain standing at the microphone, Joe Lieberman in the background.

MCCAIN: "Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate."

Lieberman steps forward, takes McCain by the arm, and whispers in McCain's ear.

MCCAIN: "I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda."

The scene shifts; a child is in bed sleeping; in the background a phone is ringing.

NARRATOR: "It's 3:00 AM and your children are safely asleep. But somewhere in the White House a phone is ringing. Something is wrong in the world. Who's going to answer that phone?"

Still shot of Lieberman whispering in McCain's ear (above)

NARRATOR: "What if it's John McCain and Joe Lieberman isn't there to tell him what to say?"

Fade to text:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT
AS WELL AS WHAT HE'S SAYING.

A Free Press

2008-05-26T08:23:00.000-07:00

In honor of Glenn's two most recent posts (here and here), I thought I'd post this little homily on the role of a free press in a democracy. While it may look like a handout for a ninth grade civics class, the source may surprise you.

A Free Press

In a democracy the press should operate free from governmental control. Democratic governments do not have ministries of information to regulate content of newspapers or the activities of journalists; requirements that journalists be vetted by the state; or force journalists to join government-controlled unions.

A free press informs the public, holds leaders accountable, and provides a forum for debate of local and national issues.

Democracies foster the existence of a free press. An independent judiciary, civil society with rule of law, and free speech all support a free press. A free press must have legal protections.

In democracies the government is accountable for its actions. Citizens therefore expect to be informed about decisions their governments make on their behalf. The press facilitates this “right to know,” by serving as a watchdog over the government, helping citizens to hold government accountable, and questioning its policies. Democratic governments grant journalists access to public meetings and public documents. They do not place prior restraints on what journalists may say or print.

The press, itself, must act responsibly. Through professional associations, independent press councils, and “ombudsmen,” in-house critics who hear public complaints, the press responds to complaints of its own excesses and remains internally accountable.

Democracy requires the public to make choices and decisions. In order for the public to trust the press, journalists must provide factual reporting based on credible sources and information. Plagiarism and false reporting are counterproductive to a free press.

Press outlets should establish their own editorial boards, independent of government control, in order to separate information gathering and dissemination from editorial processes.

Journalists should not be swayed by public opinion, only by the pursuit of truth, as close as they can get to it. A democracy allows the press to go about its business of collecting and reporting the news without fear or favor from the government.

Democracies foster a never-ending struggle between two rights: The government’s obligation to protect national security; and the people’s right to know, based on journalists’ ability to access information. Governments sometimes need to limit access to information considered too sensitive for general distribution. But journalists in democracies are fully justified in pursuing such information.

Yeah, well, you say, everyone should know this, and, yes, everyone should. This is basic ninth grade civics. But just run through these points and see how many our “free press” and our “democratic government” violate or ignore.

But what, you say, is the point in posting this if this is something everyone knows? The point lies not in the information itself, but in its source: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/freepress.htm.

That's right, this little homily on the role of a free press in a democracy is part of the State Department's primer on democracy — what we preach to the rest of the world while at home the government assiduously goes about subverting and suborning the press. Yes, the same State Department that hires Blackwater, Inc. to massacre Iraqi civilians (or at least doesn't fire them when they do).

Well, you say, since the government and the press are supposed to be adversaries shouldn't the government try to subvert and suborn the press? The answer is, not in a democracy according to the USDOS. Consider the following quotations from the above: “Democratic governments grant journalists access to public meetings and public documents. They do not place prior restraints on what journalists may say or print” and “A democracy allows the press to go about its business of collecting and reporting the news without fear or favor from the government.”

Perhaps a little statement to the effect that “the press should expect the government will try to subvert and suborn it” would be a helpful warning to a press that seems to be so easily subverted and suborned.

So long as the press is willing to provide favorable coverage of the government in exchange for access, we do not have a free press or a democratic government. A democratic government is supposed to provide access to journalists regardless (“no prior restraints” and “without fear or favor”). The State Department says so (just not for domestic consumption).

And note particularly the final paragraph concerning the admission that “journalists in democracies are fully justified in pursuing such [national security] information” and compare that with the insistence of Billy Kristol that the NY Times be prosecuted for publishing national security information (that coincidentally revealed that the president of the US was a felon). Why has the State Department never explained to Billy Kristol the duties and responsibilities of the journalist in a democracy as they themselves promulgate them? Does no one in the State Department ever speak to Kristol?

[Sorry, I couldn't find any way to work language and grammar into this; someone else will have to do that.]

Vapid is as vapid does

2008-04-28T06:52:00.000-07:00

From KarenM in comments:

Perhaps it's time for a post about synonyms for vapid?

Good idea! Here's my list:

Vapid:

insipid	flat	lifeless	dull
boring	trite	banal	uninspiring
flavorless	tedious	listless	tiresome
spiritless	prosaic	unanimated	tasteless

Anybody else?

Additions from comments (5/9/08):

vacuous

tired

hackneyed

uninspired

Forcing vs. Pouring?

2008-04-24T11:44:00.000-07:00

From a diary at Kos by Elsinora... transcript from Dan Froomkin's column

Ashcroft: "Now, listen here. You're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don't do anything like what you described."

Elsinora: "I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat. . . . "

Ashcroft: "'Pouring'! 'Pouring'! Did you hear what she said?: 'Putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them.' That's not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before [about the Asano case]!"

Elsinora: "'The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.'"

Ashcroft: "You hear that? You hear it? 'Forced'! If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring. . . . Does this college have an anatomy class?

If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring. . . . "

pour
v 1: cause to run; of liquids
2: move in large numbers; "people were pouring out
of the theater" [syn: swarm, stream]
3: pour out; of wines or sherry [syn: decant, pour out]
4: flow in a spurt; of liquids
5: supply in large amounts or quantities: "We poured
money into the education of our children"
6: rain heavily; "Put on your rain coat-- it's
pouring outside!"
[syn: pelt, stream, rain cats and dogs, rain buckets]

force
v 1: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by
physical, moral or intellectual means :"She forced him
to take a job in the city" [syn: coerce, hale, pressure]
2: urge or force (a person) to an action; constrain or
motivate
[syn: impel]
3: move with force, "He pushed the table into a corner"
[syn: push] [ant: pull]
4: impose or thrust urgently, importunately, or inexorably;
"She forced her diet fads on him" [syn: thrust]
5: squeeze like a wedge into a tight space; "I squeezed
myself into the corner" [syn: wedge, squeeze]
6: force into or from an action or state, either
physically or metaphorically; "She rammed her mind into
focus"; "He drives me mad" [syn: drive, ram]
7: do forcibly; exert force; "Don't force it!"
8: cause to move along the ground by pulling; "draw
a wagon"; "pull a sled" [syn: pull, draw] [ant: push]
9: take by force; "Storm the fort" [syn: storm]

I guess if it will ease Ashcroft's mind semantically, we can agree on using some variation of forcibly pouring, or poured by force. However, the words and phrases emphasized above should have sufficed.

And, perhaps Knox College will, in future, make sure that the distinction between pouring and forcing is added to their anatomy curriculum. [/sarcasm]

Definitions: http://dictionary.die.net/
Image: "Waterboarding in Vietnam," from Stop Torture: the Harvard anti-Torture Coalition

Elites and Elitism

2008-04-19T19:01:00.000-07:00

Time to reclaim these words. They don't really sustain their proper meanings when applied, e.g., to our esteemed Press.

"Elites," as I understand the term, are the cream of the crop, those with expertise to share, and with verifiable discernment. Journalism's true elites are not those who think it is too difficult to do actual research, or that they merely have to present two opposing views, no matter the facts of the case, in order to be objective. Nor do they think that facts have a liberal bias, but rather understand they are simply based in Reality.

"Elites" may or may not belong to the uppermost income brackets. Although they often do, belonging to that bracket does not automatically confer "elitism" on a person; nor should it. Merit also counts.

Can someone suggest to Glenn that he find a new word to characterize America's press coverage?

2008-04-05T09:11:00.000-07:00

While Glenn's regular use of the adjective "vapid" to describe the writings of the mainstream media is a completely apt descrption, he needs to insert a little variation into his narrative or else he's creating his own google bomb. If you google greenwald vapid, you get about 20,000 hits. An occasional post without "vapid", using instead some equally valid synonym such as "insipid", "pointless", "inane", "lifeless", or "tiresome", probably wouldn't damage the thrust of Glenn's prose and might even make it less predictable and, heaven forbid, "vapid".
On the other hand, perhaps Glenn intends for "vapid" to become a signature word, so that "vapid press coverage" is automatically associated with Greenwald much as Carthago delenda est calls to mind Cato the Elder. If so, he's well on his way.
(Update 4/6/08): Never mind. I've just read Glenn's post on the AP fluff piece on AG Mukasey and there really is no other word for it than vAPid.

A Call for Support...

2008-03-08T14:17:00.000-08:00

Another way to support Black Flag Week...

2008-03-03T19:50:00.001-08:00

...would be to display one of the above ads

on your blog or website
and support the Rule of Law.

And please tell us about your efforts and participation at:
AchievingOurCountry.blogspot.com
in the comments.

Rule of Law

2008-03-02T17:04:00.000-08:00

from "ondelette:"

Next week, March 9-15, is Black Flag Week in Pakistan. The lawyers in Pakistan will carry black flags. And they will probably march, as they have done since November, for the reinstatement of the judiciary, for the rule of law, and for the return to the Constitution and democracy in Pakistan. The head of the lawyers, Aitzaz Ahsan, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has been knocking heads with the government over the rule of law during multiple dictatorships going back to Zia ul Haq and Ayub Khan. Pakistan has not had a steady democracy, but rather military dictatorships alternating with often corrupt democratic rule, for most of its history.

Brief History of the Lawyers Protests

The current military government took power in a coup in 1999 at the end of a standoff with India at the line of control, the separation between the two countries in Kashmir. Pervez Musharraf rewrote the Constitution, and ruled as both the head of the military and the president, and has staged rigged elections to maintain power. When the Constitution forbade him to run again this year, he fired the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudry, hoping to get a better decision on running. Ominously, he had also been apprehending and interrogating terrorism suspects, holding them without charge, and allegedly turning them over to the Americans for interrogation. The Court released many of them, and demanded that the government either bring charges against the others and arraign them in court, or release them.

The rest of the court did not go along with Musharraf’s move, and reinstated Chaudry. On November 3, 2007, Musharraf declared an Emergency, and suspended the Constitution. He placed many thousands under house arrest, he sacked the entire Supreme Court and judiciary and made signing an oath to support the rules he replaced the Constitution with a precondition to reinstatement. He created a packed court, but most of the original justices refused to sign, and many justices and barristers were placed under house arrest. As well, many human rights workers, in particular Asma Jahangir, the Pakistan Human Rights Commissioner, were put under house arrest, as were political candidates, including Benazir Bhutto. With his permission to run in hand, Musharraf scheduled elections, but there were many flaws, and many protests. Musharraf, under both domestic and international pressure, lifted the Emergency, but many remained under house arrest, especially many lawyers, including Aitzaz Ahsan, and Justice Iftikhar Chaudry (who still are).

Most of the world knows that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007. This led to postponement of the elections, many realignments, and the issues of democracy, the Constitution and the judiciary coming to the fore. On February 18, opposition parties delivered a crushing defeat to Musharraf’s party, and a new government is forming around the Pakistan People’s Party, the Pakistan Muslim League - N (Nawaz), and the Awami National Party in the FATA region. There was an overwhelming vote in this referendum for the return to the rule of law, to secular government, and to reinstate the Constitution and judiciary.

The Pakistani Parliament has two houses, the lower house, and the Senate. Musharraf’s people maintain a majority in the Senate, although it is weakening (6 senators broke with the majority last week bringing his lead there to 51-49). But although the incoming coalition has the two thirds majority it needs in the Lower House, it does not in the Senate, and therefore impeachment or a restoration of the 1973 Constitution (the last completely ratified) will wait until the necessary votes are there. Most observers believe this is only a matter of time as long as the pressure is on, and hopefully not too much longer. Stunningly, the government of the United States is continuing to treat Musharraf as if he has not suffered such a massive defeat. If democracy is to mean anything, the will of the people cannot be thwarted, and the U.S. support has brought criticism and suspicion of Americans in Pakistan.

Where does it go from here?

Throughout the crisis since November 3rd, people who watched the news in Pakistan have seen pictures of the lawyers, dressed in their trademark black suits, demonstrating for reinstatement of the judiciary and the return to the rule of law. These haven’t been the most peaceful of demonstrations, lawyers have been beaten, some arrested, there are allegations of harsh interrogation, in one case a lawyer’s kidneys failed during imprisonment, and tear gas. These lawyers have persevered, and continue to demonstrate.

For those paying attention, this has been a drama that is at once uncomfortably violent, and inspiring in the courage shown by the lawyers, by the people who attend the demonstrations where it is not unheard of for people to be injured or die at the hands of bombers, by the people who went out to vote, by the bloggers and press, who maintained the flow of information both internally and out of the country and shot down concocted stories and propaganda that governments use when they are in trouble. Before the elections, the new military chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, ordered the army to vacate all government positions, and to maintain a separation between the military and the government. This move was instrumental in keeping the level of vote rigging low enough for the will of the people to be heard during the February elections.

So the signs are right for a real return to democracy, for a real return to the rule of law, and for reinstatement of the Constitution and the judiciary in Pakistan. A healthy secular democracy there is an outcome that will benefit the entire world, and as we have learned in many countries over the past two decades, the real basis for a healthy democracy is respect for the Constitution, and the rule of law.

On Black Flag Week, there is an opportunity to show solidarity for the Pakistani lawyers and their struggle for the things that we in this country hold to be fundamental — civil rights, democracy, law, and a Constitution. It isn’t there yet, and it won’t be unless the pressure is kept on. Even once it comes, it will be a slow climb out of corruption and broken rule, and the country has many problems including poverty, religious militancy, and illiteracy. The new government will more than have its hands full. It will have a much easier job if the laws of the country are secure.

Please help show support for these lawyers. Please wear a black armband or other black clothing during the Black Flag Week, and please take the time to educate others on what that clothing or armband means. If the rule of law is fundamental, then it is never too unimportant to grow and strengthen it, anywhere in the world.

Torture is torture, except when it's news

2008-02-14T09:25:00.000-08:00

The issue of word manipulation in politics and media is really Glenn Greenwald's claimed territory, but I can't let this week go by without commenting on it. Why? Because I heard a short news clip from the BBC about the six Guantanamo prisoners who have finally been charged with some sort of crime. And the broadcaster did something that made me want to break things: he said that one suspect's confession was under question because it had been gained using "the controversial waterboarding technique," a phrase that news media have universally decided is an acceptable way to refer to torture.

By not calling waterboarding torture, news media around the world are complicit in the US government's flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions and the ease with which they discard their humanity. By not simply saying straight out that acts such as waterboarding are wrong and evil, news media are pushing a pervasive doublethink on populations around the world. This is where we get our information--if the BBC doesn't call it torture, it must be at least debatable, if not perfectly okay, to partly drown people in order to make them say things. Must be okay, then, to deprive them of sleep, give them electric shocks, kick them, pull their hair, herd them into camps designed to cut them off from families, cultures, and societies, and then gas them. What the hell is the difference?

We're all familiar with the idea of doublethink and how it has infiltrated our news outlets and common culture. We're also familiar with the tricks politicians use to make their atrocious positions more acceptable. We all know, here on a blog devoted to language use, that words can be used to manipulate and trick and redefine how we think. Oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is "energy exploration." The Refuge itself is made more vague by calling it ANWR. Coal gained from blowing up pristine mountains and leveling them is a source of "clean energy." Global warming is now "climate change" (although I think that one backfired a little bit). And torture is a "vital interrogation tool."

It is unacceptable that news media play along with these tricks, just to keep the Bush administration happy. Pollution is pollution. Coal mining is filthy and destructive. Compassionate conservativism means absolutely nothing. And torture is torture.

The administration claims, as we all know, that they need permission to use these techniques to preserve our national security. What sort of security are we talking about? Our simple physical existence? What kind of physical security do you have if you've sold your soul to the devil (sorry for the melodrama)? What could possibly be more important to our national security than preserving our humanity?

Looking for Real Words

2008-02-07T13:31:00.001-08:00

So I missed out on my promised Thursday post last week. A teething baby, a house full of guests ... ack.

There are a number of minor language topics on my mind this week: politically correct terms, thoughts on The Golden Compass series, questions of mass language manipulation. But the most recent one to come up is one of those niggly little issues that annoys me like a mosquito buzzing around my half-asleep ear every time I turn the light out.

I'm looking for words for two concepts that, as far as I know, don't have real words. The first is one I heard for the first time this week: heterosexual life partner. This, I'm told, is something like what a bosom friend used to be, except we don't really use that phrase anymore outside of bra shopping. My younger sister has one, and another old friend has one. But what an ugly thing to call the person you consider to be more than a best friend but less ... attached, shall we say, than a spouse! Besides which, to me it can be confused with the relationship of heterosexual people who live as spouses but aren't married.

In fact, I hate the word "partner" for describing that kind of relationship. It sounds so much like a business arrangement, nothing romantic or hopeful or optimistic in it, really.

Anyway, any good suggestions for heterosexual life partner?

The other is a little more complicated. It's a writing issue. I'll try to explain.

Sometimes you write a scene in a story, or go into a long thought-chain in an essay, in which the character or narrator is meant to be in a particular place -- this especially comes up in travel writing. And you get caught up in your narration or thoughts on the character or whatever, and your words go on long enough that the reader forgets where you are meant to be. When this happens, bringing the reader back to that place can be a little jarring.

So when you're revising, or someone's editing for you, you need to put in little placement reminders. For example, I was working on a colleague's essay about Cuba. She was describing sitting at an outdoor restaurant there, and was writing about Cuban economics and people's personal career situations and so on. She thought it went on too long, but all she needed was a little reminder that we were sitting in the restaurant: "The waiter brought us beers and I shifted the milk crate I was sitting on to let an old woman pass" or something like that.

I find these lines really important, and for myself I made up a shorthand name for them. I call them 'locator lines.' But I'm thinking there either must already exist a good term for them, or someone can come up something a little shorter or more poetic. Any ideas? If I haven't explained very well, please say so.

Bring on the Babbling

2008-01-24T08:10:00.001-08:00

(Note: Introvert Girl--me--is going to attempt posting on the Choco-Bang every Thursday. Hurrah for New Year's resolutions!)

Introvert Girl is not a talker. But you probably guessed that. Being an introvert, of course, I can thrive on a really meaningful conversation with one or two people whose opinions and ideas fire my imagination. For a couple of hours. Once a week. But I don't like being on the phone (really don't like it). I don't like frequent social gatherings. I don't like having guests in my house who can't entertain themselves. I usually need a day to myself to recover from a party, and a solid week to myself to recover from houseguests.

So what could possibly turn I'Girl into a babbly, chatty, talking idiot? If you know that I've recently had a baby, you know the answer.

It's not that his gummy, gorgeous smile prompts me to go "coochy-coo" at him on a whim. Nope, it's worse. It's a book.

When I told her I was pregnant, my sister presented me with What's Going on in There? which is a book about baby brain development written by a neurobiologist. And it's good, really good -- interesting and educational and persuasive. I have some issues with the research the author quotes, which involves horrible behavior toward rats, monkeys, and orphaned and abused children, but that's a very small part of the book.

A very large part is given over to the development of language in babies. And I've discovered, to my sorrow, that talking constantly to a baby (not just around the baby or near the baby) during its first couple years lays a a foundation for complex language development that can never be made up in later life. Research has shown that, no matter what your economic class or social background, the more you talk to a baby, the better its brain develops. The effects of early language exposure last well into elementary school, and, if maintained through childhood years, throughout a kid's learning life.

You've got to talk, talk, talk. And it's hard. For someone who revels in silence and who can go whole happy days not saying a word to anyone, it's a massive shift in habit. (I usually use up my chatting energy by doing filial duty on the phone. I thought I could rack up talk credits while expressively directing my words at him while I was on the phone, but somehow he knows the difference and doesn't engage.) My only incentive is the overwhelming evidence that my constant chatter is really, really important to this fourteen-pounder's little brain.

What's Going on in There? has been a true mind-opener for me. But as I try to remember to tell my son what I'm doing as I'm trying to make myself lunch, or spend an hour exchanging babble with him in his room, I kind of wish, secretly, that I hadn't read it. Ignorance is indeed bliss.