The Regressive Grammarian: Stop Going Forward

Following my complaint about my neighbors' rising electric bills, General Manager Mike McDowell writes from Heartland Consumer Power District's new multi-million-dollar headquarters that Madison's increased electrical rates aren't Heartland's fault, either. It's the feds, WAPA, generation costs, even environmental regulations. And you, Madison power users:

Customers have the ultimate control of their use of energy.... We will work hard to restrain these costs going forward. And we need our customers to help us by using energy as efficiently as possible [Mike McDowell, "Electric Rates Are Increasing Across the Nation," HCPDBlog, 2010.11.12].

Rule #1 of American management-speak: evade responsibility.

Rule#2: Use the phrase going forward.

Going forward (and variations like moving forward) is one of the most superfluous fluff phrases in contemporary English. We're all moving forward through time, every second. McDowell's second sentence above—and every sentence using that phrase not referring to physical movement—would mean exactly the same thing without it. We will work hard to restrain those costs—period.

Going forward doesn't add to our understanding of the actual situation. It is press-release propaganda, inserted to create an impression that the speaker and the speaker's organization are progressive, proactive, forward-looking... and eminently desirous that we stop paying attention to what just happened, like an electric rate hike, the release of your boss's lengthy court record, an uncomfortable suggestion that Sarah Palin might campaign for you, or the President's advocacy for a health care reform bill that you're afraid might cost you votes back home.

Everyone, try word efficiency: drop going forward from your management-speak lexicon.

Read more:

1. The IT folks at TechTarget find going forward good management-speak: "...it means enough to be useful while also being suitably vague."
2. Google Rep. Herseth Sandlin's House website for going forward. I get 25 results.
3. This Microsoft developer was with me three years ago.
4. We can track annoyance with going forward back at least five years... I wonder what management guru started this usage?
   

Computers Evaluate South Dakota Student Writing

"So how do I persuade a computer?"

That was the profound question asked by a skinny freshman in my English classroom eight years ago. His query was prompted by a new directive from Pierre: our ninth-graders would take their state-mandated writing test online. Rather than penciling essays for well-indoctrinated moonlighting English teachers to grade, the students would type their essays online, and a computer program would instantly assign numerical scores representing the quality of their writing. That year, the essay type was persuasive, so the implication was that the computer was now able to assess the persuasive quality of student writing.

My student posed a perfectly logical question, and we started looking for a logical answer. The result: this essay in which a little research and reverse-engineering showed what one would expect: the computer had no concept of the actual persuasive quality of writing. The software the state purchased could only turn words to numbers, counting word frequencies and other interesting statistical data about each essay. Students could mash key topic words into Yoda-like sentences of consciously varied length infused with random prepositions, sporadic unusual big words, and occasional semi-colons and dashes, and ace the test.

For example, the above paragraph might score just as highly as the following string:

Computer concept persuasive a writer mash unusual sporadic could really fly. Frequencies word intelligent with the quality of logical freedom only turn my result fruitless; never will show the actual words to a big persuasive computer. Quality arises? Certainly. Again concept consciously varied semi-colons—exception to the rule!—can better convince computer that this essay by macaroni rocks, though state money of software the purchase replace Pogany hilarious would be. Random, infused, yet persuasive writing beats essay actually composing understand the readers will not, but bean-counters of souls of students cog-in-the-machine always souls of students degradation to data cold digital.

The state didn't run the computer-scored essay test again while I was teaching. But the Department of Education has apparently found a better algorithm and are returning to computer-scored essays. Kids, start your writing engines!

As state director of assessment Wade Pogany notes, the computerized writing tests do offer some advantages. Practically speaking, teachers can derive some data about student spelling, grammar, and word choice. Where the human-scored essays have to be read and returned, computers will score these essays immediately, meaning teachers can use the software over and over to get data about their students' writing and help them improve (the fancy term: "formative assessment").

And of course, the testing companies can increase their profit margins by decreasing their labor costs. They pay a panel of writing experts to score maybe several hundred sample essays, then pay a few computer geeks to run statistical analyses of those human scores and the correlated quantitative linguistic features in the essays. After that, the testing companies don't have to pay anyone but tech support and the marketing people who convince state departments of education to spend our tax dollars on this soul-numbing technology.

So remember, kids, you're not writing for humans any more. Your words aren't art. Play the game, pass the test... and heaven help you if you ever need to express your creativity.

Sentences per paragraph: 4.5
Words per sentence: 19.2
Characters per word: 5.4
Passive sentences: 3%
Flesch Reading Ease: 41.6
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.0

Ellis: Lindberg Perfectly Qualified to Run Tea Party

...at least that's what it sounds like he's saying!

Barb Lindberg has staged a perfectly legal coup to officially take over the Rapid City Tea Party, a.k.a. Citizens for Liberty. Bob Ellis, along with others who thought the group was their own little club to dictate, is miffed to have been out-maneuvered by a woman he clearly considers his inferior. He appears to declare Citizens for Liberty no longer has any credibility—and how can it when it is not blessed with Bob's certainty and divine authority?

Ellis and his vanquished outflanked Citizens for Liberty board—and we can only use "board" colloquially, since the group had no written bylaws until Lindberg filed the official incorporation papers—have aired all their dirty laundry on Dakota Voice, with a link on the Citizens for Liberty Tea Party website (alas, Ellis still holds the Web keys, so Lindberg will have to start a new website for the official group... let's hope she includes a daily blog!). The "board" rebuttal is ugly, petty, self-righteous, Newspeaky, yet hilarious. In a 4,435-word essay (and Bob has chided me for writing lengthy rebuttals as a sign of ill conscience), they lambaste Lindberg's public speaking and time management skills. They air in-house e-mails.

And, in the funniest thing I've read all week, the beaten Ellis et al. summarize Lindberg's qualifications to run a Tea Party thus:

The CFL board tried for several months to work with Mrs. Lindberg on some of her rough edges, and while there were some improvements, she was becoming increasingly intransigent and heavy-handed at board meetings. In the end, she escalated to the point of paranoia and veiled threats to somehow remove two board members with whom she had the sharpest disagreements [Ed Randazzo, Dawn Pence, Zach Lautenschlager, Bob Ellis, "Facts Behind the Dismissal of Barb Lindberg from Citizens for Liberty," Dakota Voice, 2010.07.29].

Rough edges, intransigent, heavy-handed, paranoia, veiled threats... wow. Those characteristics perfectly describe of the Tea party mindset, the town hall tactics used last year to oppose health care reform, the tactic of bringing guns to public rallies, and the rhetoric of spilling blood to nourish the tree of liberty. It sounds like the Rapid City Tea Party has found its perfect leader.

Plus, Lindberg still wants to bring Glenn Beck to Rapid City. Keep the good times rolling, Barb!

-----------------------
Bonus Baggers: Some environmentalists constituting a "Green Tea Party" in Florida delivered green tea bags to Senator George LeMieux to demand Senate action on climate change legislation. Ah, it's good to see teabagging can swing both ways!

Lost in Translation: Svanberg Looks out for Small People... a.k.a., "The Little Guy"

I was going to let BP chief Carl-Henric Svanberg's comment about the "small people" go without comment. I just heard SDPB's Gary Ellenbolt make a little editorial hay between segments, likening Svanberg's word choice to Leona Helmsley's infamous comment about "little people" paying taxes. (Dang: some British press is going there, too: just Google "Svanberg Helmsley"to track the meme.)

For Pete's sake, people, I'm the biggest anti-corporate commie in South Dakota, and I'm willing to take Svanberg's apology at face value. Svanberg is Swedish. His words were nothing more than a clumsy reformulation of the American colloquialism, "the little guy." That phrase is arguably semantically identical to Svanberg's utterance, yet it causes no uproar in American English usage. Among the examples of such usage I can find this morning:

• an editorial cartoonist criticizing Senator Lisa Murkowski for taking huge donations from Big Oil
• a blogger who shares my distaste for corporate personhood
• a Texas letter writer who thinks we do more for "the little guy" by expanding oil drilling than by passing "Marxist" policies like cap-and-trade
• a blogger criticizing political ads using fear of big government to oppose credit card regulations
• candidate Barack Obama explaining in a presidential debate why he picked Joe Biden for VP
  

Related: in one of the most powerful protest songs never heard on radio, Don Henley's "A Month of Sundays" calls on us to "Pray for the independent little man,/ I don't see next year's crop."



Oh yeah, Svanberg's big oil corporation agreed to set up a $20-billion fund to compensate folks damaged by its oil spill and suspend three quarters of dividend payments while it cleans up its mess in the Gulf of Mexico. Not bad.

AP Stylebook: "Website" Now One Word!

The AP Stylebook has added a new "social media" section. Among the profound declarations: website is now one word, uncapitalized. Funny: that's how I've been writing website all along, but until now, AP has preferred Web site. I love waking up to find I'm no longer wrong. But take note: Web page remains two words.

By AP rules, you should still capitalize Web when referring to this worldwide wonder. And for Pete's sake, keep the hyphen in e-mail, e-book, and e-reader.

AP now recognizes unfriend and defriend as acceptable verbs. Of course, you can make the world a better place by focusing on befriending....

---------------
Update 2010.07.04: Then again, if you're writing for the Web, do you listen to an anchor of the old media, or do you follow the new Yahoo style guide? Yahoo says no hyphen in e-mail. Choices, choices....

English Teacher Comment on Sutton-Wiese Settlement

My English grammar students will recognize the glaring problem with Dan Sutton's lawsuit-closing written apology to Austin Wiese. As KELO reports it, the letter from Sutton to Wiese includes these twelve words:

I apologize for any problems, discomfort or embarrassment this has caused you.

This. What's this? Is it this groping of which Wiese accused Sutton? Is it this legal wrangling? This unpleasant publicity? This apology itself? This long wait for the apology? This color ink the apology is written in?

This in this apology is a pronoun with no clear antecedent. In writing, the word this should always be followed by a noun. A lawyer who paid attention in English class would have slid Sutton's letter back across the table and asked, "This what?"

This sloppy wording is a grammatical evasion of the issue... which is just what settlements where the defendant admits no wrongdoing are about.

"Total Destruction of Our Constitutional Republic" -- Really?

Congressman Devin Nunes told Fox News last night that the passage of health care reform would be "the total destruction of our Constitutional republic." The California Republican also said the country is being run by crazy 1960's leftists from Hollywood and San Francisco.

I'll be watching for evidence of that "total destruction" today. If you see any Hollywood liberals tearing down Grecian columns, San Franciscans urinating on courthouses, beret-wearing brownshirts storming the Madison Daily Leader office, or any other signs of the total destruction of the Constitutional republic, post them here. I'll broadcast until the leftists come for me. (And they'll come for me and Heidepriem: we're only recent converts to the Democratic party, and our ideological purity is in question.)

In the mean time, enjoy the epic Tea Bag fail.

Newquist Explains Tea Bag Fascism; Ellis Obliges with Examples

I love it when bloggers work together to make the same point.

David Newquist doesn't blog as obsessively as some of us—obviously a sign of a well-balanced life. When Newquist does blog, it's worth the read. His latest essay addresses the health insurance reform deabte and the strains of fascism in the right-wing tactics. Newquist highlights the apparent hatred opponents of reform have for those who have the gall to get sick before getting rich. He notes the parallels between the beer-hall putschists who graduated to genocide and today's Tea Bag shouters:

• Some people on the right feel that any criticism of the U.S. or any mention of its failings and mistakes is unpatriotic and anti-American.
  
• ...Liberalism is branded as the great culprit behind all of America's problems....
• The de rigueur mode of Republican rhetoric is never to do a fact-based point-by-point analysis of anything you oppose. Rather always, Always, ALWAYs concoct an accusation of intellectual or moral defect or depravity against some person or group. This tactic does not require any knowledge or honesty, but works up a good case of hatred for any ultimate solutions for the vanquishing of the left wing. As the propaganda analysts of the Holocaust have pointed out, the foundations of gas ovens are always built with defamatory words [emphasis mine; David Newquist, "What Happens If Health Care Reform Fails?," Northern Valley Beacon, 2010.03.20].

A perfect example of what Dr. Newquist means:

And while I understand that you desperately want people to be misled about this very real fight for freedom against tyranny, that is exactly what this is about.

You and your Marxist, America-loathing parasites will lose when this is done. Some of you obviously are, but most of the American people aren't ready to be socialist Euro-sheep yet. They realize the legacy of freedom we have, and we will all fight to preserve it [Bob Ellis, comment, Madville Times, 2010.03.21].

For the radical right wing, it's not about policy. It's not about making a better America for everyone. It's about playing war against me, and my wife, and David Newquist, and other decent people... "Marxist America-loathing parasites" all.

Keep screaming your "oaths," Mr. Ellis. You remind us daily of the real dangers to democracy.

------------------------
Democracy (from Wikipedia): "The word "democracy" (Greek: δημοκρατια) combines the elements demos (δημος, which means "people") and kratos (κρατος, which means "force" or "power")." Demos, the people. Not just the people certain ideologues think deserve to live here. Not just the people who pass certain political or religious or sexual litmus tests. The People, all of us.

End-of-Life Counseling Returns in House Legislation... As Do Cynical GOP Lies

More proof of the desperation of the right wing to stop health care reform: Dakota War College resurrects the "death panels" meme. Check out the sophistry as Powers propagates what has been widely recognized by every responsible journalist as a lie:

1. Pat Powers speciously opens with the line "Government intrusion into end of life decisions," then fails to offer any proof of such intrusion. The only government action in the House health care bill referred to in the AP article referenced is a provision that "allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death."
2. Powers cites the line from Senator Grassley about "pull[ing] the plug on grandma." Powers ignores the fact that Senator Grassley himself has completely repudiated that statement. As I said in August, Senator Grassley agrees that the only person making end-of-life decisions under the House legislation is you.
   
3. Powers also declines to share with his readers the portion of the article that says the amped-up lies may have actually helped rally support for end-of-life counseling. The provision's sponsor, Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer, tells AP, "There is nothing more basic than giving someone the option of speaking with their doctor about how they want to be treated in the case of an emergency.... I think the outrageous and vindictive attacks may have backfired to help raise awareness about this problem, which is why it's been kept in the bill."

The "death panel" charge was a pants-on-fire lie the first time it burbled out, and it's a pants-on-fire lie now. The GOP knows it can't win on the issues, so it makes stuff up, hoping people are too busy to pay attention to the facts. Oops: problem is, the more the GOP lies, the more people recognize what a failed, solution-less party it has become.

Swine Flu. Yes, I Said Swine Flu. Pass the Bacon

Jon Hunter expresses his deep concern about the darned media that persists in referring to H1N1 as "swine flu." Calling it swine flu, says Hunter, "causes confusion and likely contributes to some people not eating pork products for fear of contracting the virus."

Obviously we need a fine slew of swine flu euphemisms... lest pork producers whine and sue.

It grinds my gourd that we have masses of media muckrakers calling the President of the United States of America all sorts of things he isn't—Communist, socialist, Kenyan—and that's all fine and dandy. But refer to a virus by a name that might threaten the price of bacon, and see the editorials fly!

And the funny thing is, even the CDC calls H1N1 swine flu and says it is "of swine origin."

Swine flu. H1N1. Whatever. You can't catch it from eating pork; you're probably a greater danger to your pigs (and ferrets). Now pass the bacon.

Black Is White: Sibby Shows Cash for Clunkers Has No Negative Impact on Donations

Steve Sibson and I have picnicked together twice this summer. We played the bad kids in class at Saturday's Glenn Beck picnic, distracting ourselves with small asides on what we were hearing.

But our positive personal interaction does not change my opinion that Mr. Sibson has a bad tendency to hear what he wants rather than what is. His post this morning about Cash for Clunkers is a stunning example of Sibby's disconnect from logic and reality.

Sibby's headline: "What Cash for Clunkers Is Destroying." His tag line: "It is obvious that Cash for Clunkers are destroying donations like these."

He then copies and pastes this KSFY article about the Wheels to Work program in its entirety (Sibby! Learn to use blockquote!). I expect the KSFY article to perform the normal function of evidence and support Sibby's argument. Silly me.

Among other things, Cliff Chandler's report says...

• "While [Wheels to Work] has been operating in the Sioux Empire for 15 years, the only started to take off within the past month"... the same month Cash for Clunkers was in effect.
• "Suzanne 'Lynn' Cheesman said, 'We set a goal of ten cars. We know it's a big item to donate and we're blown away.' Tires, Tires, Tires offered to fix the donations up, making sure they're safe for the road. Since the first of the month, more than 30 cars have been dropped off."
• "'So we're going to have enough cars to cover enough people on our waiting list and to help people in the future,' said Karen Hattervig of Wheels to Work."

The KSFY report Sibby cites says not one word about Cash for Clunkers. It says not one word about Wheels for Work or any other auto donation program suffering. As a matter of fact, it says the exact opposite, that Wheels for Work is enjoying unprecedented success in Sioux Falls.

There's plenty of legitimate ground on which to argue the merits of Cash for Clunkers. But Sibby's post this morning is illogical and irresponsible. I like Steve, but he needs to take his head out of his bucket and listen to what the people he cites are actually saying.

Rounds: Flags at Half Staff for Kennedy... Since We Have To.

I'm trying really hard to avoid any snark relating to the death of Senator Edward Kennedy. But I'm going to take this one partisan shot... since Governor Mike Rounds sounds like he's doing the same:

I ask all South Dakotans to comply with the directive of President Obama to honor Senator Kennedy by flying the flag at half staff.

—South Dakota Governor M. Michael Rounds, 2009.08.27

Comply with the directive—not the words I would choose if I wanted to sound like I gave a damn. Certainly not the kind of words that accompany Governor Rounds's other half-staff orders:

On former State Rep. Tom Hennies: "Tom Hennies had a remarkable career of public service, both as a law enforcement officer and a state legislator.... He served with pride, compassion and integrity, and he will be missed. We extend our condolences to his family." [2009.08.14]

On former Lt. Gov. Carole Hillard: "I worked with Carole for six years, when she was the President of the Senate and I was the Majority Leader.... I gained a huge amount of respect for her. She was intelligent, caring, and always fair in conducting the Senate’s business. She was a 'class act' but it was never an 'act.' She was a genuine, kind, gracious person who was a good friend to everyone. She was also very proud of her family and loved to talk about what they were doing.... After she left government, she could have totally retired, but she worked very hard promoting democracy and economic development in other countries. She cared deeply about other people and about making things better. We are a better state because Carole Hillard gave her time, talent, and wisdom in public service to South Dakota." [2007.10.25]

On President Bush's Patriot Day directive: "It is appropriate that we remember and honor those brave men and women whose lives were taken in the deadly attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.... It is also appropriate that we thank those who serve the cause of defending our country and recognize our first responders who answer the call in times of need.” [2008.09.09 and 2006.09.08]

On former President Ronals Reagan: "President Reagan will be remembered as a hero and a leader.... He believed in the American people. He helped us see how bright our future could be. His vision of a free people with unbridled potential became our vision once again. America is better because of his ability to share the dream with each of us as if we knew him personally." [2004.06.07]

What Governor Rounds actually thinks about honoring Senator Kennedy is not the point. People get paid to make sure the words he says—or doesn't say—convey exactly the right message. They didn't have to gush over Senator Kennedy. But they could have crafted one sentence that sounds a little classier than, "Well, the President said so, so do it."

----------------------
For some South Dakota officials who can find some respectful words, see Dave Kranz's Friday column. But as for certain legislators' lack of recall of legislation Kennedy pushed that affected South Dakota, start with immigration law, S-CHIP, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Tell the Story, Mr. President: Back Facts with Narrative to Win Health Coverage Reform

From Berkeley linguist George Lakoff, via Rebecca Blood, an argument that even having all the facts on our side may not be enough to win the health care reform debate:

To many liberals, Policy Speak sounds like the high road: a rational, public discussion in the best tradition of liberal democracy. Convince the populace rationally on the objective policy merits. Give the facts and figures. Assume self-interest as the motivator of rational choice. Convince people by the logic of the policymakers that the policy is in their interest.

But to a cognitive scientist or neuroscientist, this sounds nuts. The view of human reason and language behind Policy Speak is just false. Certainly reason should be used. It's just that you should use real reason, the way people really think. Certainly the truth should be told. It's just that it should be told so it makes sense to people, resonates with them and inspires them to act. Certainly new media should be used. It's just that a system of communications should be constructed and used effectively [George Lakoff, "The Policy-Speak Disaster for Health Care," Truthout, 2009.08.20].

Now I'm more interested in discussing the actual plans for saving money and saving lives by reforming health coverage than the language we use to promote it. But Lakoff makes the unavoidable point that, in the democratic process, language matters. He really makes the same point as my debate coach friends do every year (and which I'll be making in my speech class at DSU this fall): point-by-point rebuttals are useful, but to win the round, debaters need to convey the truth of their argument in a "clear and powerful narrative."

And what is that clear and powerful narrative the President needs to tell America?

• The American Plan: Health care is a patriotic issue that we should all work together, through a public option, to solve.
• Doctor-Patient Care: The President's reforms are all about removing all the current practices that get between you and your doctor, like unaffordable insurance, exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and denails of coverage for preventive care and maternity and other basics.
• The Status Quo is private taxation, bureacracy, and control: Insurance companies tax you and profit from it. Insurance companies subject you to a bureaucracy more complicated and opaque than any government health coverage system. Insurance companies deny and ration care every day. And insurance executives don't have to answer to you at town halls or the ballot box. (Try calling your insurance agent or claims processor a letter and telling her she's a Nazi bent on killing your mother, see how well that goes over.) An American Plan gives you more bang for your buck, more coverage, and more control and accountability.

I suspect my conservative readers will brand Lakoff's recommendations as mere spin. But Lakoff isn't asking the President to take the socialism/fascism criers' tack and tell stories that could only be true on another planet. He's making the valid point that most Americans aren't policy wonks (they don't have time to be!). To bring out public support (support that poll after poll has shown is out there!), the President and all supporters of reform need to choose clear, powerful, and memorable language that conveys the truth.

---------------------
Update 08:45 CDT: But there are still plenty of myths to bust. Bulk up your narrative with this list 14(!) bogus arguments against health coverage reform from MediaMatters.org.

Update 13:27 CDT: Peggy Noonan makes a somewhat similar argument in the Wall Street Journal about the need for simple language to sell big legislation to "normal" people. Sounds a little elitist, but the point dovetails with Lakoff's.

Abdallah Proposes Weakening Sex Offender Laws

If Patricia Stricherz is reading the news this weekend, she can e-mail me and say, "I told you so!" Stricherz, one of the GOP's unsuccessful legislative candidates here in District 8 last year, caught grief from me last October for saying one of her legislative priorities was to relax sex offender registry rules for juvenile offenders.

Now a Republican who manages to win elections, State Senator Gene Abdallah (R-10/Sioux Falls), is calling for making exceptions for juveniles and maybe others on the sex offender list:

"We're looking at the possibility of making exceptions to get off the list after a certain period of time depending on the seriousness of the offense," Abdallah said.

Senator Gene Abdallah is the chairman of the committee looking at the changes. Abdallah says some of the offenders on the sex offender registry don't deserve to be on it their entire life.

"We've had examples of 16 and 18 year olds dating, and he's considered an adult at 18, and she's not, and something happens and he gets on the sex offender registry and is on there for life," Abdallah said [Ben Dunsmoor, "Changes to Sex Offender Registry Considered," KELOLand.com, 2009.08.14].

Something happens... um, Gene, since when did you stop believing in free will and personal responsibility? This sounds dangerously like sexist (yes, check the senator's pronouns) boys-will-be-boys excuse-making. Just how well will "something happened" fly as an excuse for lighter sentences for other crimes?

More hilarity ensues as Abdallah tries to avoid headlines like mine:

Abdallah doesn't want to call it weakening the laws, he says he is still in favor of keeping some of the most serious offenders on the registry for life.

"I'm not in favor of weakening or diluting any laws when it comes to sex offenders or crime for that matter, but I do feel we should be fair," Abdallah said.

Being fair to some of those that are serving an online life sentence, on the sex offender registry* [Dunsmoor, 2009.0814].

I'm o.k. with fairness. I'm willing to have a discussion about whether we can fairly impose on certain criminals lifelong restrictions on where they can live and work. Maybe fairness does require weakening the law (although SDCL 22-24B-19 already spells out a number of criteria that allow offenders to get off the list). But Senator Abdallah does language and logic harm (once again!) with his clumsy word games. Right now, an adult having sex with a child is a sex offender. If Senator Abdallah wants to declare that such an adult is not a criminal, or is a less heinous criminal, just because the adult is dating that child or is in love with that child, then he should just say so and call his proposal what it is: a weakening of the sex offender law.

*Dang it, there's another one of those sloppy KELO sentence fragments!

David Brown, Fellow NFL Alum: Very Cool (Unlike Sentence Fragments)

KELO reporter David Brown takes the time to reply by e-mail to my gentle teasing over some word choice in his report on Madison Republicans' embrace of Obama's stimulus and government handouts.

In my "minor quibbles," I committed one grievous oversight: in referring to Brown as "the sports guy," I neglected to note that while David Brown's KELO bio is linked under the Sports section, he covers both news and sports. (Not that we can watch his news reports, since KELO's digital signal still won't come in strong enough! Grrr!) He is also a proud graduate of the powerhouse Apple Valley High School speech and debate program and a fellow veteran of the National Forensic League. My kind of guy... and definitely one deserving of my apology for not reading the bio more closely before blowing blog raspberries his way.

Below are some excerpts from the e-mail I wrote in response to Brown's communication, including some serious grammar discussion. Enjoy!

Without ado, mea culpa... or at least a mea sorta culpa: Occasionally in the heat of blogging, I tease or take an easy poke at a public figure. My commenters do it to me (boy, do they ever!), and I give them grief for it... but then I turn around and dish similar criticism on reporters, politicians, etc. It's all too easy for me to forget that "the sports guy"... is also a neighbor, a fellow South Dakotan, and a real person, just trying to do his job better every day, just like the rest of us. And you face the added challenge of trying to do that job in very public view. If you slip, you have thousands of wiseguys who don't face the cameras or public criticism ready to blow raspberries at you.

Your job is not easy. I do not mean to make it harder, especially not for a fellow National Forensic League alumnus and a graduate of esteemed Apple Valley (Joe Wycoff! a stud!). I hope I can say, "I kid because I love," and we can call it good... but if not, if my words sounded like a more grave indictment of your professionalism (and that happens sometimes -- my words do sound different in my head than they do to other readers), I apologize for any harm done.

...

That darned sentence fragment: You make reasonable points. There is a difference between the written and spoken word (hey, you did debate: I don't need to tell you this!). When I do classroom lectures and presentations, my language is rich with pauses and structures that sound great but which I would not use on paper (often because I'm extemping and haven't planned where my sentence will end!). Even on the blog, I used to be a grammar Nazi, but I've come to recognize, from practice and from reading some academic research on the blogosphere and Internet social norms, that we are moving quickly, and that putting form over content just isn't good Web 2.0 ethos. (As I said, minor quibble.)

[Deep grammar alert! Skip if not interested!]

However, online or off, orphaned "Which..." clauses are a particular peeve I keep an eye out for, largely because of grim experiences where I find high school and college (!) students not recognizing that a "which" clause absolutely cannot be a sentence of its own. (Please don't think I'm lecturing you now: I'm just making clear where I'm coming from.) This is different from sentences starting with "And..." or "But...." Those coordinating conjunctions are perfectly grammatical as sentence starters (teachers who say otherwise are wrong). But "which" is a different beast: it is a subordinating conjunction, and a subordinate clause cannot be a complete sentence. The only time you can start a complete sentence with "Which" is when you are asking a question (in which case "which" is acting as an interrogative pronoun, not a subordinating conjunction).

Trying to start a non-question sentence with "Which" is thus a pretty serious grammatical flaw, one that I'm trying to stamp out of my students' heads. I seem to see this particular error in news transcripts enough that it has some familiarity. It comes from the natural, lengthy pause reporters take in their reports, cutting from a quote back to their own text. In speech, it feels like a full sentence stop. But in writing, it's still a grievous fragment.

A possible solution: Instead of using a period and a capital letter, perhaps you could use ellipses or an em-dash to represent that big pause without marking in writing a new sentence:

• According to Draper, "Business is great!" ...which makes everyone in Madison happy.
  
  or
• According to Draper, "Business is great!" — which makes everyone in Madison happy.

[End Deep Grammar Alert]

...

What I really really like about your e-mail... is that you took the time to respond, and did so in the spirit of seeking to explain (politely! thank you!), understand (you invited more input... and you're getting it!), and (the kicker) improve. In the DSU business class I taught last spring, we read and talked a lot about the importance of engaging with customers, listening, and learning what they want. On the blogs, we talk a lot about the importance of participation, breaking down the barriers between producers and consumers, government and citizens, everybody. Whether we look at your response in terms of customer service or in terms of participatory media, you're emitting the right vibe. Keep it up!

[CAH, e-mail to David Brown, 2009.08.09]

Sloppy Thinking and Entitlement Mindset Abound Among Anonymous Commenters

I generally ignore the lingering trolls who persist in leaving cowardly anonymous comments in complete disregard of the Madville Times rules of engagement. If making anonymous public statements is really that important to you, set up your own anonymous blog and fire away. I need not waste my time answering faceless whispers in the dark.

But occasionally Anons perpetrate such idiocy that I feel a moral obligation to correct them.

Pat Prostrollo, fellow socialist
(photo courtesy Madison Daily Leader)

For instance, this morning, woefully ignorant Brookings Swiftel customer 66.17.116.131 returns for another dose of my "smug rhetoric" and suggests my labeling of Pat Prostrollo as a "fellow socialist" (oh look! there's the graphic again!) constitutes defamation.

Ha ha ha.

Dear Anon, if calling someone who advocates a government spending program a socialist constituted defamation, there would have been mass arrests and lawsuits at the Tea Parties.

Amusingly, Anon shakes the junk drawer of her/his/its brain and spills out some additional unrelated rhetoric about the entitlement mindset. Funny: I had another anon just a couple weeks ago argue that no one is entitled to anything... and then, in the same comment, claimed that her/his/its comment was entitled to being posted on this blog, comment policy be damned.

Anonymous commenters fill my mornings with laughter... but I'm still deleting their posts. Next issue!

Euphemism Alert: KELO Re-Headlines Colin Steen/Storm Story

...or "GM Gets Headline Bailout"?

Tony Blair exaggerates how much I care about the Indoor Football League.

I care about this much (see photo) about the great tempest surrounding the IFL's Sioux Falls Storm. Stiffing its workers, cheating on sales tax, losing a lawsuit over shoddy astroturf... sounds like just another shady business breaking the rules to make a buck.

But what catches my eye this morning is KELO's gentle revision of its headline about the ouster of Storm general manager Colin Steen. Originally, the headline read, "Steen Out As Storm GM." (KELO did the caps, not me.) Simple, direct, honest.

According to a quick Google search (click image left for larger view, with my green highlighting), that headline went up at 5:36 p.m. 22 minutes later, KELO slapped a new headline on Don Jorgenson's story: "Storm's Colin Steen Pursues Other Opportunities."

Now I can't remember the exact text of the original story, nor can I find a cached version, but I'm pretty sure the text of the story was changed as well to include the "pursue other opportunities" euphemism.

My goodness: is a general manager who has fubarred his organization this badly really worth that much euphemism? Maybe corporate can't shake its marketing-speak, but must the media parrot such doubletalk?

Pastor Hickey Claims Feminist Credentials...

...and he might be right.

Far-right blogger and Church at the Gate pastor Steve Hickey is claiming credit for leading the outrage over the ratings-grab sexism of reinvented South Dakota blog Middle Border Sun:

The left half of the South Dakota blogosphere, and now the right, is fully caught up in an outrage that I was first to decry… liberal blogger/attorney Todd Epp's sexism with his new "Babe of the Day" feature [Pastor Steve Hickey, "Babe of the Day—Gianna," Voices Carry, 2009.06.09].

Indeed, Hickey was on the watch to defend women's rights... although decry might be a little strong. Hickey's original feminist stand was more of a glancing rhetorical swipe in the midst of a much longer screed building the case that MBS blogger Todd Epp had misrepresented, libeled, and endangered Pastor Hickey.

But the core of Pastor Hickey's claim is true. He was this week's original feminist.

You can read the outrage here and here. I couldn't agree more, human beings are valuable even if they are undesirable to some. Our worth is not in anyway related to how perfect we are. We can't keep treating people as objects to be used and discarded [Hickey, 2009.06.09].

Hickey can't avoid putting the argument in abortion terms... but then I've been known to hammer my own issues with crossover language from other arguments (I could easily turn this argument to decry private insurers who use people for profits then discard them the moment they actually need health coverage).

Meanwhile, good Catholic and dad Pat Powers says Pastor Hickey is wrong, that this little kerfuffle is silly, and that it's o.k. to be a pig. After all, "finding the opposite sex attractive is hardwired into our systems, and does help in keeping the species going." Powers then proceeds to set an example for his daughters by posting pictures of women he calls hot.

Powers stunningly misses the point. Pastor Hickey, Prairie Progressive, Flying Tomato, Anna, That Girl, Angie, and I aren't talking about referring to women as pretty. We're talking about referring to women as hot.

Hot. As in in heat. As in inviting sex. As in I'm going to project my desire to have sex with that woman who is probably not my wife and never will be onto her so that it feels in my brain as if its her fault that I'm a pig thinking about screwing her.

To any of you who still don't get it, I propose the daughter test. If you don't have daughters available, try it with a friend's family. The test works best with other people, especially your wife, in the room.

1. Turn to one daughter and say, "You are very pretty."
2. Turn to another daughter and say, "You are very hot."

Does #2 make you feel creepy? Will it make you feel creepy if I come to your house and say it to your daughter?

Pretty and hot are not the same thing. Neither are admiration and objectification.

Frank Schaeffer, Penitent for "Pro-Life" Provocation

Frank Schaeffer was an active anti-abortion activist in the 1970s and early 1980s. He and his evangelical father Francis Schaeffer campaigned through books and film to overturn Roe v. Wade:

In the early 80s my father followed up with a book that sold over a million copies called A Christian Manifesto. In certain passages he advocated force if all other methods for rolling back the abortion ruling of Roe v. Wade failed. He compared America and its legalized abortion to Hitler's Germany and said that whatever tactics would have been morally justified in removing Hitler would be justified in trying to stop abortion. I said the same thing in a book I wrote (A Time For Anger) that right wing evangelicals made into a best seller. For instance Dr. James Dobson (of the Focus On the Family radio show) gave away over 100,000 copies [Fran Schaeffer, "How I (and Other 'Pro-Life' Leaders) Contributed to Dr. Tiller's Murder," Huffington Post, 2009.06.01].

In the mid 1980s, Frank Schaeffer left what he now calls "the so-called pro-life movement and... a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America." He now takes a very clear position on the responsibility he bears for the murder, in a church, of Dr. George Tiller:

The same hate machine I was part of is still attacking all abortionists as "murderers." And today once again the "pro-life" leaders are busy ducking their personal responsibility for people acting on their words. The people who stir up the fringe never take responsibility. But I'd like to say on this day after a man was murdered in cold blood for performing abortions that I -- and the people I worked with in the religious right, the Republican Party, the pro-life movement and the Roman Catholic Church, all contributed to this killing by our foolish and incendiary words.

I am very sorry.

Schaeffer still expresses disagreement with Roe v. Wade and calls for changes in American abortion policy. Yet he unequivocally takes repsonsibility for his own words and what he perceives as his responsibility for the murder of Dr. Tiller.

We could use more direct language like that. It just might stop the next wacko from shooting a law-abiding doctor.

Mixed Messages from Pastor Hickey on George Tiller Murder

I'm having some difficulty discerning true meanings in some of the blog coverage of the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. Todd Epp of South Dakota Watch/Middle Border Sun criticizes Pastor Steve Hickey of Voices Carry for "rejoicing" (Epp's word) in the murder. I review Pastor Hickey's original post: he pretty clearly expresses relief that Dr. Tiller is dead, and he says some odd things about us lefties deluding ourselves "into thinking Tiller is receiving heaven's reward right now" (bit of a stretch to make American liberal atheists like me sound like Muslim radicals, Steve). But he also salts his post with enough contradictory language about feeling sick about the murder that it's hard to tell what Hickey means. He says vengeance is the Lord's, not ours, but he expresses eagerness to witness the punishment he imagines God meting out on Tiller. he says the killing was "misguided and far more harmful to the cause than helpful," but he sees pro-choice activists who write offensive statements as more misguided than the man who shot Dr. Tiller in his church. And Hickey ends his post with this Biblical justification for murder:

...the Bible says in this case it'd be better for Tiller to have had a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the depth of the sea that to have done what he did in this life... [Pastor Steve Hickey, "Today Tiller the Killer, Now a Martyr for Molech, Not God," Voices Carry, 2009.05.31].

There is enough language in both directions that one could argue both ways: in places, Pastor Hickey sounds like he is justifying and celebrating the murder, but in others he sounds like he is condemning it... although that condemnation sometimes seems to reflect more concern about the damage the murder will do to his political movement than the sin of the murder itself. But Pastor Hickey and his supproters can quite rightly make the legalistic argument that he nowhere says he "rejoices" in the shooting.

KELO appears to side with caution and Pastor Hickey on this one. For perhaps the first time in its nearly two-year association with the independent South Dakota blogosphere, KELO has pulled a post. Mr. Epp's criticism of Pastor Hickey remains at his home site, but it has disappeared from Mr. Epp's corner of the KELO Issues blog list.

I won't cry First Amendment foul here. Those of us granted the privilege to post on KELO understand the rules perfectly well: KELO can nuke anything we write, for whatever reason, just as KELO (like any other media outlet, and any blogger) is free to choose what news it covers and what angles it chooses to play up or ignore.

But then I turn to Pastor Hickey's follow-up, which seems to play the same verbal shell game that got Mr. Epp's dander up and his post banned:

Also, earlier this evening a friend of mine dropped an interesting historical parallel into the fray that I believe to be right on the money. It made me think there is a little deja vu down there in Kansas tonight.

The historical parallel is to John Brown, who hacked pro-slavery Kansas farmers to death with swords.

President Lincoln called John Brown a "misguided fanatic." Historian David S. Reynolds hailed him as the man who "killed slavery, sparked the civil war, and seeded civil rights." Historian Ken Chowder said John Brown was "at certain times, a great man", but also "the father of American terrorism." Probably all of the above is accurate.

Misguided... killed slavery... great man... father of American terrorism... "probably... accurate." Pastor Hickey waits until the very bottom of the article, after reposting the full text of the celebratory "John Brown's Body," to say "Tiller's killer is no hero" and deserves no songs to be sung about him... although Hickey offers no explanation of what distinguishes John Brown's celebrated murderousness from yesterday's killing on sacred ground.

Pardon me if I scratch my head a little. I will agree that the issue is very complex... but must also conclude from the language in Pastor Hickey's article that he is trying to play both sides. He wants to introduce the John-Brown-hero meme, but he wants to be able to disavow it. Perhaps that's enough cover to get KELO to ban the debate... but Pastor Hickey lays enough verbal land mines to warrant Mr. Epp's criticism.

-----------------------------
There is one telling passage in the blog post Pastor Hickey says is "right on the money":

No rational person would consider Brown a positive figure in history….but he did prove something. The issue of slavery was one of life and death. It was not political. It was not governmental. It was much, much deeper than that, and there was no common ground high enough for both sides to stand and feel good about their compromises. It could not be negotiated. It had to be settled [emphasis mine, thoughts Randy Bohlender's, "Thoughts on the Killing of George Tiller," RandyBohlender.com, 2009.06.01].

The first part I emphasize actually encourages me: perhaps Mr. Bohlender and Pastor Hickey are agreeing with me that we need to take the abortion debate out of politics, get the government out of women's medical decisions, and address abortion at the personal and community level.

The second part I emphasize makes me nervous: No negotiation, no settlement... those sound like fighting words to me. If abortion protestors do retreat from politics, I hope they will follow Christ and Gandhi and not John Brown in their efforts to remake society. I only worry that Pastor Hickey's equivocal language does not sufficiently condemn the latter and embrace the former.

Update 2009.06.02 09:35 CDT: Even Sibby manages to be more direct in his condemnation: "Tiller Murder Is Not Pro-Life."