Tim Johnson, Compassion, and Politics

From the Argus Leader:

U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson and his wife Barbara will be at a public event in Sioux Falls in the evening on Tuesday, Aug. 28, according to a release issued from his Washington office moments ago.

Johnson, who has been recovering from a December brain surgery, will personally thank the people of South Dakota for their support, the release said.

Johnson has yet to make any public statements or appearances since his surgery.

As I have said many times, I have met Senator Johnson and I think very highly of him.  I am encouraged by news of his progress.  I believe that most or all folks in South Dakota, regardless of their party affiliation, feel the same. On the other hand, Senator Johnson is a public servant and the public has a right to inquire as to his fitness for duty.  Senator Johnson's planned appearance is a reasonable response to these concerns. 

But some of my esteemed blogosphere colleagues see Senator Johnson's condition as a partisan issue.   Todd Epp has this:

Hey, GOP Wolf Packers!  Sen. Tim Johnson is going to meet South Dakotans August 28th. Maybe you can get your pack ready to try and trip his walker then blame him for falling.

So far as I can tell, the "GOP Wolf Pack" is entirely a figment of Todd's imagination.  He has yet to provide a single piece of evidence for its existence.  And my colleague David Newquist has this:

Shortly after Sen. Johnson's "episode,"  the vultures gathered around his bed, cyberly speaking, and pronounced his demise and said he should resign from life and the U.S. Senate.  Then at news of his recovery, they insisted that he put himself on display so they could see if he had any speech defects or spastic movements.

Vultures occupy space and leave droppings.  Can Professor Newquist show us any evidence of the one or the other?  My impression is that Republicans in South Dakota, and elsewhere, have been more than civil and compassionate throughout Senator Johnson's illness.  But there is, after all, and election approaching.  Does the Senator's illness forbid the Republicans from fielding an opposing campaign? 

That, I think, is what my Democratic colleagues are hoping.  But hiding behind a wounded man is no more noble than kicking him.  Let Senator Johnson tell us when he can return to duty, and whether he intends to run again.  That is enough for me. 

SDP on Keloland

Most or all SDP posts will now be appearing simultaneously on the Keloland website.  You can view our posts, along with those of several other regional bloggers at Keloland Political Blogs.  Any longtime readers of this blog (and there are some!) will be amused at the collection of bloggers there.  You can read my introductory post here. 

Language and Natural Right

Anna responded promptly and vigorously to my second post on gender-neutral language and eloquence.  I offered this famous sentence as an example of the latter:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Anna has this comment on Lincoln's opening:

I think it's important first of all to point out the fact that Ken's example, while eloquent and a nice idea, was in fact a total lie for anyone who wasn't white, male, and of a certain class.

I think Anna is indeed confused, as she playfully says, but it is over the meaning of the word "dedicated".  If Lincoln were saying that all men (i.e., all human beings) were in fact treated equally, or that everyone's rights were secure in the Republic from the time of its founding, he would indeed have been telling a "total lie."  But that would have been a very strange thing for Lincoln to say, as his rise to the presidency was launched by his opposition to the extension of slavery.

Lincoln's argument was that the new nation was "conceived in liberty", which means that the founders did what they did because they, at least, enjoyed liberty.  And he argued that the new nation was dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal." A person or persons can be dedicated to something without having yet achieved it, as a Doctor may be dedicated to curing an as yet incurable disease.  Stephen Douglas, by contrast, argued that "all men" just meant all white men, and maybe not even that.  The founders had no belief in any logic that would be more inclusive.  I think Lincoln was clearly right.  Anna seems to side with Douglas on the point.

It is easy to judge the founders harshly.  They were not so open-minded, perhaps, as Anna and I.  Maybe we are better people.  But of course it is easy for us to be so open-minded: two hundred years of politics have brought about a society where it is very easy to advocate a complete equality.  That is precisely what Lincoln was hoping for.  What Anna and I would believe if we had been alive in 1776, or 1858, is anyone's guess. 

But the best that one can say for the Republic in its early days is that it was more inclusive than any other regime anywhere at that time or any previous time.  More ordinary people participated in the constitutional ratification process than could have been imagined before that moment.   And contrary to what Anna says, class was no barrier for the simple reason that America has no class system.  Property was indeed a barrier to voting in some states, but any person, no matter how low his birth in class terms, could participate if he owned property.  Moreover, property qualifications varied among the states, and again, many people of very modest means participated in most places.   

The founders justified the separation from Britain and thus the birth of the the new nation on precisely the principle that "all men are created equal".  This is in the founding document, the Declaration of Independence.  Lincoln used that fact to defeat Douglas's principle of neutrality with regard to slavery.  Martin Luther King, Jr., used it to argue that American apartheid was un-American.  The same logic is obviously a cornerstone of the feminist movement.  I think Anna is to quick to undermine it.

Back on the original question, Anna makes this point:

Secondly, there are all kinds of words that we once used and don't anymore (at least in polite company) because we as a society decided those words weren't appropriate. While I am not convinced that words like 'manning' should be drummed out of our vocabulary, I don't think we've lost much of import through that process.

This is a point worth making.  The purging of certain specific words that have no function other than the expression of racism or other forms of prejudice is certainly necessary. The purging of a common and very basic root word because it has certain associations in certain contexts, that is quite another.  But I do not see that Anna and I have a quarrel here.

Finally on the case of women firefighters, I was not scoffing at the idea.  I have no doubt that many women do this job as well or better than their male colleagues.  Interestingly enough, I read today that a disturbingly large proportion of firefighters are disturbingly large, and that on the job heart attacks are the leading cause of fatalities among them.  I hope that the 6,200 women working in that field are not typical.  I still don't know what the proportion of women firefighters is, but I respectfully yield this point to Anna. 

MSM: Factually Impaired

Randall Hoven at American Thinker has compiled a list of sixty-two instances where major media outlets have gotten in trouble in recent years for reporting false information or just outright fabricating information.  Before we jump on "the MSM is a bunch of liars" bus, note that Hoven's tentative thesis is that competition from the online world has pushed mainstream news sources to sensationalize their coverage and to run with stories before they have all the information.  There may be some validity to that, but in the market for news one would think that telling the truth would be a pretty big selling point. 

BREAKING: Dan Scott Filing Suit Against Beck, AL

Breaking news from SDWC:

This is breaking news JUST in.

I’m on break from class, but I had to jump out to break it. Based on the Argus Leader’s editorial from Randall Beck, Dan Scott has filed a lawsuit against the Argus Leader and Randall Beck for Libel.

More to come tonight!!

MySiouxFalls is leading with the story of the defamation lawsuit against the Argus Leader.  SDWC has more information, and KELOLand is covering the story now.

UPDATE:  In a somewhat related story, see this Slate piece entitled "Reign of Error."

Laptops: The God That Failed

South Dakota universities are looking to increase their use of laptops as a pedagogical tool.  As I have argued before, this is nothing but a race toward the bottom.  By all means, let us turn out yet another generation of trousered apes.

Johnson Appearing In Public

Tim Johnson will appear in public on August 28 in Sioux Falls.  Other details as yet unknown. 

Herseth-Sandlin

Wonkett on Herseth-Sandlin:  "She’s like the Angelina Jolie of the great plains."

New SD Political Blog

A shout out goes to South Dakota Potty Break, the newest addition to the South Dakota political blogosphere.  Welcome!

Gender Neutral Language 2

Anna at Dakota Women responds to my post on this topic.  It occurs to me that while Anna and I have the opposite political instincts, we tend to move toward a common position once we have thought about it.  Anna says this:

I think that the language puritans are kind of a minority among feminists.  I, at any rate, am not one.

I don't know whether Anna is right about the proportion of language puritans among feminists, but language puritanism in academia and publishing is pervasive.  Anyone who frequently submits work for editing will have felt its influence.  And that influence is generally bad for language.

Why is it shocking and awful and the way to "evisceration of language and reason" to say "mail carrier" or "fire fighter" or "police officer"? Maybe I'm missing the point, here...it's happened before with me and my pal Ken.

My comment about the "evisceration of language and reason" referred solely to the idea that someone's personal sense of being offended was good reason to purge the language of certain terms.  Anna didn't so much miss the point as confuse one point with another. 

The most basic functions of language are communication and persuasion.  A set of words that gets a point across and convinces a reader or an audience is well composed.  The higher function of language is eloquence: using words as a painter uses color and texture.  Eloquent language not only communicates and persuades, it fashions new architecture in the souls of those who appreciate it.  Consider the following example:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

I humbly submit that it is impossible to appreciate the grandeur of that sentence without carving out a new space in one's own soul.  Now it might be possible to replace the chauvinist  "fathers" with some gender neutral equivalent.  But at that point the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.

With regard to ordinary speech, Anna's examples are very good.  "Mail carrier" reflects the obvious truth that the person who drops the letters into the letterbox might as well be a man or a woman or transgendered. It is nonetheless more awkward and washed out than the traditional "mailman."  By contrast, "firefighter" has more punch and information than "fireman".  I just think that rhetorical strategies ought to trump the socially conscious manipulation of language. 

And besides: how many firewomen are there, really?  It is a corruption of reason to believe that we can manipulate reality by manipulating language. 

SDP joins Keloland Blogzilla!

Very soon now (once the bugs are worked out)  SDP posts will be appearing on the Keloland blogsite, along with several other regional bloggers on the right and left.  We hope that this will increase the number of our readers, and encourage conversation among the most notorious regional bloggers.  We here at SDP are determined to maintain this site as it is, but our readers will now have two places to go for our insightful commentary, as well as our dull and dim-witted commentary. 

Thune In Aberdeen

Here's the American News report about John Thune's appearance in Aberdeen yesterday.  I went to this event and think the AAN pretty much captures it.  I will say I always remain impressed by Thune's ability to speak to an audience and his command of vast amounts of information. Here's a snippet from the AAN:

Thune spoke to a group of about 70 mostly agricultural producers on Tuesday afternoon at Hub City Livestock in Aberdeen. He said having a disaster title in the farm bill would make more sense than having to somehow appropriate funding to cover natural disasters every year or two.

The last disaster title in the farm bill was in 1996, Thune said.

Congress is authoring the next farm bill. The House has passed its version. The Senate will take up the issue after it returns from the August recess.

The current farm bill expires at the end of September. Thune said work on the next version won't be done by then, so that farm bill will have to be extended. He hopes the next farm bill will be finished by the end of the year, estimating there's a better than 50-50 chance of that happening.

Thune said that, as far as commodity and conservation payments go, the House farm bill looks good. But, he said, it doesn't have a disaster title, something he will work for in the Senate version.

Asked where the funding would come from to cover the increased cost, Thune said he thinks there is between $4 billion and $5 billion to get the provision started. That's not enough, he said, but simply having a disaster clause in the legislation would be a step in the right direction.

"It'll be a tough balance to strike, but I still have some hope that we can get something," Thune said.

Minnesota Likes Pawlenty

Contrary to the blame heaped on Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota after the Minneapolis bridge collapse, the people of Minnesota have never been more favorable toward their governor. 

In the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s approval rating has climbed to its highest level recorded during his tenure in office, a new poll shows.The poll, conducted by SurveyUSA over the last weekend, found that 59 percent of Minnesotans approve of the job Pawlenty is doing at a time when the aftermath of the collapse has thrust him into the national spotlight.

Perhaps the people of Minnesota have a more sophisticated view of the tragedy in Minneapolis than the "Pawlenty opposed a tax increase and therefore a bridge collapsed" view one read in some quarters. 

Grim Milestones

A mere 15% of Americans polled approve of the job Congress is doing:  "The dismal ratings for Congress have worsened since Democrats won power in the 2006 elections. Fifteen percent rate the performance of Congress as excellent or good, worse than the 23 percent who gave the Republican-led Congress positive marks in its final days last October."

Language Lynched by Gender Neutral Puritanism

One of the things I brought back from Boston (including a lot of ounces around my waist from lobster) is this letter to the Boston Globe, by one Margie Lynch.

Watch your language

August 11, 2007

IN THE advanced year of 2007, I'm always stunned to hear or read language that isn't gender neutral. And it's all the more stunning when I see it in an article written by a woman in a publication as progressive as the Globe ("Democrats court labor backing," Page A6, Aug. 8).

The worst offender is the word "manning," by which is undoubtedly meant "to supply with people (as for service)" (Merriam-Webster). Yet to the my eye and ear, the word explicitly excludes me along with the majority of the US population. There are many gender-neutral alternatives, such as "staffing." I hope the Globe's editorial staff will be more mindful of using them, and will impress upon its reporters the importance of doing so.

Ms. Lynch's last name is proof, if any be needed, that there is a God and that She/He has a sense of humor. 

Two things strike me as obvious from the epistle.  First, Ms. Lynch hasn't thought much about the meaning of the words she finds offensive.  The word man apparently derives from a very old root, present across a geographically wide range of languages (e.g., German and Sanskrit), that is ambiguous: it means either human being or male human being.  The ancient Greek word anthropos involves the same ambiguity.  But it has a second derivation, almost as old, from the Latin root for hand, as in the words manual and manipulate.  So to man a ship, for example, may mean to supply the boat with a number of Y Chromosomes, or simply with a number of deck hands (chromosome neutral).  Trying to eradicate the three letters man from the English language cuts modern language off from its etymological roots, which does serious damage to our self-understanding.  And if we take Ms. Lynch's puritanism seriously, we would have to strip the language of all the man = hand words, which would be a loss of a lot of verbal resources.

The second problem is suggested by this language:

Yet to the my eye and ear, the word explicitly excludes me along with the majority of the US population.

The implication here is that anything offensive to Ms. Lynch's "eyes and ears" out to be stricken from the dictionary.  That way lies the evisceration of   language and reason.  The fundamentalists don't want to hear about evolution.  The Muslims don't like the word terrorist.  Pretty soon a lawyer won't be able to use the word rape on behalf of a woman in a rape trial. 

Maybe we should quit trying to purge the language of offensive words and instead focus on the concepts and objects that words try to capture. 

 

Obama

Ed Morrissey:  "Obama started this primary campaign looking like a man with a future in the Democratic Party. His asinine pronouncements on military affairs and foreign policy now make him look like someone drowning in two feet of water."

Academic Donations Go Overwhelmingly to Democrats

A dog-bites-man story, but interesting nonetheless:  "Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama received about $1.5 million in contributions this year from college professors and others in the education field, outpacing the party's front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who got $940,000 from academics.  Still, Clinton's near-$1-million second-place finish was almost as much as academia's total combined donations to leading Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain."

Thune in Aberdeen Today

What: Community Forum with U.S. Senator John Thune
When: Tuesday, August 14th, at 4p.m.
Where: Hub City Livestock Auction, 2502 South Fifth Street, Aberdeen, SD
Who: This event is open to the general public

**Please join United States Senator John Thune on Tuesday, August 14th, at
4 p.m. for an important community forum on energy and agriculture
issues. Discussion will focus on energy legislation in the United States
Senate and the upcoming debate on the 2007 Farm Bill.

The meeting will be held at the Hub City Livestock Auction, located at 2502 South Fifth
Street, Aberdeen.

More Boston Stuff

Below is half a torpedo: all drive and no charge.  I believe the technical name for this is an "Epp."

And this speaks for itself:

And here is a metal sign with two dents in it.  The upper right dent wasn't there when we arrived at the park.  Dave Ortiz was responsible.  His double scored the Red Sox's first run. 

Herseth-Sandlin & Kos

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the far left Daily Kos, says in the last election cycle they supported Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin:  "In fact, one of the first people we, we supported was Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota..." 

The Nation

Even The Nation is criticizing the Democrats:

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

Gannett For Sale?

From Forbes:

Gannett Co. Inc., the nation's largest newspaper publisher, changed agreements with its top two executives that would accelerate payment of retirement and deferred compensation if the company is sold, according to a regulatory filing.

The company, which publishes USA Today, also changed the threshold at which an employee buyout constitutes a change in control that would trigger the executive payments. A spokeswoman for the company said she could not immediately confirm whether the change involved lifting the threshold.

Gannet said it made the change to comply with tax codes and the move did not indicate it was entertaining any offers.

"A change in control of Gannett is not in the works or even anticipated," Chief Executive Craig Dubow wrote in a note circulated to employees Friday. He said the plan that was amended has been in place since 1990.

"We were mandated to make these changes by the IRS," said spokeswoman Tara Connell.

The newspaper industry has been in turmoil for the past year, as several prominent - and previously thought to be untouchable - properties have changed hands. The sector has struggled with a persistent decline in revenue as advertisers shift spending online.

Here's another story about Gannett.