I’m usually not one to argue semantics anymore—-in fact, I really have come around to hating nit-picking semantic quarrels that people get into that end up distracting from the real issues. Not that I think semantics are always irrelevant! Misleading terms like “pro-life” can and do alter the battle dramatically, and should be replaced with more accurate terms like “anti-choice”. When the wrong term can lead to genuine misunderstanding, I think it’s important to say something. Which is why I want to nit pick this one little thing that Bill Wolff said on “Rachel Maddow” in an otherwise excellent and informative segment:
The one little thing is the word “believe”, as in “people who ‘believe’ in global warming”. I would like, if at all possible, to declare a moratorium on using the word “believe” to describe what people do in relationship to scientifically sound theories backed up by oodles of evidence. I’d prefer the word “accept”, which more accurately conveys what’s going on. Something is true, full stop. If it’s true, then people either accept it or deny it. But they don’t “believe” in it, which is a word we tend to use more to describe people’s relationships to untrue or at least unprovable things, or to values.
Here are some examples of what I’m talking about:
*My beloved grandmother is dead. When I get the news, my shoulders fold and I start crying. Am I accepting her death or believing in her death?
*I’m debating with someone on whether or not abortion should be legal. Do I accept or believe that abortion should be legal?
*Someone giving me directions says to turn left at the light and then the location is on my right. Do I accept these directions, or do I believe them?
*Do small children accept Santa Claus or believe in Santa Claus?
I could go on all day, but you get the idea. “Believe” spikes the sentence to suggest the thing that is believed or not believed is really up for debate by reality-based people. Global warming is not, nor is the theory of evolution—-these things are simply true. Since they’re true, you either accept the science or you deny it. Deny is the word we use when someone refuses to agree with the facts. So, say my boyfriend dumps me and I refuse to accept that it’s over. I am in denial. Global warming denialists are just that, in denial.
It’s true that there are many cases where “accept” and “believe” are interchangable. I’m not denying that. (See what I did there?) But I think in a situation like the one we’re dealing with now, where huge percentages of the public simply refuse to accept reality, then we can’t afford to use ambiguous language that allows for people to think their denial is more justifiable than it really is. For laymen like myself and most Americans, the distance between global warming theory and fact is so thin as to be irrelevant; it’s basically a fact. We either accept or deny reality. And we should use language that reflects this.
I thought this shite was dead and buried, and now here we have the resurrection of ‘Ebonics.’ You might recall that this was the nonsense perpetrated by “well-meaning people” in Oakland back in the 1990s to recognize the slang used in black neighborhoods as language or dialect.
This has now reached an epic level of FAIL in the administration of the first black President as the Drug Enforcement Agency is officially hiring for agents fluent in “Ebonics.” Jonathan Capehart at the WaPo tipped me off on Twitter:
Pam_Spaulding
@CapehartJ Oh jesus, you are not kidding me. #Ebonics is back. (hangs head).
CapehartJ
RT @Pam_Spaulding: @CapehartJ Oh jesus, you are not kidding me. #Ebonics is back. (hangs head).//WORD.
So I clicked over to the source material Jonathan cited, the always-interesting Smoking Gun, and no, it’s not a joke.
AUGUST 23—The Department of Justice is seeking to hire linguists fluent in Ebonics to help monitor, translate, and transcribe the secretly recorded conversations of subjects of narcotics investigations, according to federal records.
A maximum of nine Ebonics experts will work with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Atlanta field division, where the linguists, after obtaining a “DEA Sensitive” security clearance, will help investigators decipher the results of “telephonic monitoring of court ordered nonconsensual intercepts, consensual listening devices, and other media”
The DEA’s need for full-time linguists specializing in Ebonics is detailed in bid documents related to the agency’s mid-May issuance of a request for proposal (RFP) covering the provision of as many as 2100 linguists for the drug agency’s various field offices. Answers to the proposal were due from contractors on July 29.
In contract documents, which are excerpted here, Ebonics is listed among 114 languages for which prospective contractors must be able to provide linguists. The 114 languages are divided between “common languages” and “exotic languages.” Ebonics is listed as a “common language” spoken solely in the United States.
Ebonics has widely been described as a nonstandard variant of English spoken largely by African Americans. John R. Rickford, a Stanford University professor of linguistics, has described it as “Black English” and noted that “Ebonics pronunciation includes features like the omission of the final consonant in words like ‘past’ (pas’ ) and ‘hand’ (han’), the pronunciation of the th in ‘bath’ as t (bat) or f (baf), and the pronunciation of the vowel in words like ‘my’ and ‘ride’ as a long ah (mah, rahd).”
Holy crap. This is so absurd that I cannot believe I’m reading this. Slang and pronunciation common to “the black community” (whatever that is) is not a language; in fact if we’re going to even entertain the subject of “Black English”—it doesn’t deserve it, but let’s “go there”—how can you determine what it is? Slang and pronunciation are highly regional, cultural, and constantly changing just like fashion. How the F can you recruit for that? And, as Jonathan noted:
First, of all, it ain’t even a real language. A dialect? Sure. But a language like Spanish, Vietnamese or Korean, which the Atlanta office also needs help with? Seriously? Then that would make me and other African Americans you know bilingual. After all, I can lop off words and run them together with the best of them when 1. I’m comfortable with you and think you can hang; 2. I’m with family, ‘cause that’s how we talk; or 3. I’ve had a third martini—and I don’t care.
...I have three questions. How is proficiency measured? Who does the testing? What are the courses like? Last I checked “Ebonics” was not offered by Berltiz or Rosetta Stone. But I must say I’m impressed with the DEA’s moxy. Or is it chutzpah? As Mrs. Cleaver said, “Chump don’ want nah help, chump don’ get da help.”
This week, I was doing some research on the surge in rhetoric about repealing the 14th amendment for the podcast,* and I have to admit that even I was astounded to hear how Fox News’ preferred nomenclature for people who immigrate here without going through the green card/citizenship channels is “illegals”. Just “illegals”. Not “illegal immigrants”, and of course not “undocumented immigrants” or “undocumented workers”.
The usual anti-racist reaction to the term “illegals” is to say, “Actions are illegal, people aren’t.” Which is a sane, accurate response. But I have to admit, the term “illegals” causes such a gut wrench in me that this response seems inadequate. It reminds me of another favorite term of conservatives: “illegitimate”. Both these terms convey an argument in them, and that argument is that if you aren’t blessed by the acceptance of married paternity** or U.S. citizenship, then you are cast out, not really a full human being. “Illegal” is a term straight out dystopian sci-fi, which loves to create dehumanizing terms to show how much a certain class of people have been pushed out of society. The Handmaid’s Tale had the term “Unwoman” to describe women who had no sexual or reproductive value to the patriarchy and were thrown out. In 1984, the “proles” were basically seen as animals. In Logan’s Run, people over 35 who don’t submit to execution willfully are called “runners”. I’m sure you can come up with a million examples. In science fiction, the process of casting a group of people out (or targeting them for extermination), and then giving them a dehumanizing nickname is one of the most common tropes.
“Illegals” sounds like a term straight out of this sci-fi tradition, except it’s happening in real life. And when it comes to the treatment of undocumented immigrants, this is a sci-fi style dystopia. Check out this story, for instance:
WTF is wrong with these self-loathing gays? That at least two California newspaper knew and didn’t say that State Senator Roy Ashburn is gay is almost par for the course; after all, Rep. David Dreier’s open secret is safe with local media.
But how could all the guys partying with him at Faces, the bar Ashburn apparently frequented and was arrested not far from for DUI with an “unidentified man” in the car? Other homo-collusionists were obviously not perturbed by the lawmakers 100% anti-gay voting record. What does it take for some of our people to get the hint that this is NOT OK. (Joe. My. God):
The Californian decided that Ashburn’s sexuality wasn’t “relevant.” The unnamed Sacramento paper apparently did too and never published. To recap: It’s not relevant that a state politician with a 100% rating from an anti-gay group is gay himself. Can you fucking BELIEVE that? And it turns out that the openly gay mayor of West Sacramento has known about Ashburn for a long time.
Christopher Cabaldon, the openly gay mayor of West Sacramento told KOVR he has spotted Senator Ashburn at gay hot spots a number of times. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn’s has consistently voted against gay rights legislation including no on recognizing out of state same-sex marriages, no on creating a state recognized Harvey Milk Day, and no on expanding anti-discrimination laws. “To live a secret life and at the same time be attacking the people who you’re one of but are too ashamed to admit, that’s hypocrisy,” said Cabaldon to KOVR CBS 13.
That hypocrisy apparently didn’t bother Mayor Cabaldon enough to actually fucking say something. And you know that if Cabaldon knew, many other queers in Sacramento knew. If I lived in West Sacramento, I’d want to have a long angry talk with my mayor.
This is heinous. That Ashburn was dragged out of his unlocked-padlocked closet to the rest of us is a major problem here. Well when Ashburn was asked about his sexual orientation, perhaps his answer gives us a clue about the political culture of apathy of the gay community where the bloodshot-eyed, state vehicle-driving drunk legislator likes to cruise.
“Why would that be anyone’s business? Including The Californian‘s? “I think there are certain subjects that are simply not relevant and this is one of them. It has no bearing on the job I do.”
Even with a 100% anti-gay voting record, along with organizing family values demonstrations to protect the sanctity of marriage. Something is really f*cked up out there in Sacramento.
Catching up on reading Balloon Juice, I saw that John Cole was thinking what I’ve been thinking: Democrats need to be saying the phrase “up or down vote” until they’re blue in the face. I’ve been amused all this past week, watching Rachel Maddow run a contest to see who could rename the filibuster problem in a way that was soundbite-friendly and attention-grabbing. When people ask my advice on getting people engaged with your message online, I tend to suggest just this—-reward them for creativity and listen to their opinions, and you’ll find progressives respond really well to that. And that’s what her show is doing with this contest, driving people to the website and, more importantly, getting them to really think about and care about the filibuster issue so they’ll talk to friends, blog, and call their Senators. I also applaud the daily touting of Senators who answered their calls, which is a good way to shame those who didn’t.
Here’s the “but”. But the problem is that the winner—-“The Tarantino”—-is cute but not actually a good frame, since it doesn’t make you think about the actual problem, but about a bunch of movies. Granted, the intention of the contest was never to actually come up with decent framing of the filibuster issue so much as to raise awareness of the “boring” problem to political junkies who don’t think it’s actually boring, and to have an excuse to talk about it when the news cycle doesn’t produce any impetus to do so. But I think it’s time to talk about the actual frame to use. And luckily, the Republicans have done all our work for us, both in terms of coming up with the phrase and popularizing it. They even perfected the tone of moral indignation with which to pronounce the phrase.
“Up or down vote”.
God, it’s a brilliant phrase. (Another reason I vote “evil” in the “stupid or evil” debates, because many Republicans are good at being simple in a way that’s deceptively hard to do.) Why? Well, it’s simple and descriptive. You don’t have to know the particulars of how a vote is being blocked to know that it’s going on, and to relate immediately to the frustration being expressed. It conveys the idea that the minority party threatening to filibuster is preventing the government from working, and this pisses people off, because we fund their paychecks. But above all other things, the phrase taps into Americans’ deep and understandable loathing of interminable meetings.
This loathing is why movies and TV shows that have cops impatient with meetings and protocol that decide to cut the crap and do it their way are endlessly popular. Few of us have escaped a work environment where you and probably some to most of your colleagues just want to start to work on something, and you feel you know what needs to be done, but oh my god, someone’s called another meeting where everyone can rehash the same issues over and over again. And while you’re sitting around discussing the work, the work is not getting done, and you have that dreadful feeling you get when you begin to realize that while you thought you had a lot of time to finish your work, it’s getting eaten up by fucking meetings and you’re beginning to panic.
Or worse! You’ve been in a work environment where the bosses prefer to call meetings to tell their disempowered underlings things that would have been communicated nicely by a memo, thank you very much. If you’ve worked in service, you’ve experienced these meetings. Everyone is forced to come in an hour early so the boss can tell you that you need to wear 20 pieces of flair now, asks for comments, and then gets aggravated because no one has anything to say because the whole fucking thing is a farce anyway, and no one is unaware of the fact that speaking up and arguing with the boss will mean exactly nothing.
The filibuster is both these meetings rolled into one. The Republicans are both wasting time for the hell of it, and playing the role of the aggravated boss man who feigns interest in having a discussion and gets pissed when you correctly assess that he’s full of shit and won’t—-or can’t—-budge an inch.
The phrase “up or down vote” is the cop who plays by his own rules in this system. It hits on a major fantasy enjoyed by the vast majority of voting Americans who’ve been subject to boring meetings, that you could simply cry foul and take a vote that would shut down the meeting so you can all do something that isn’t a meeting. Democrats should be using the phrase to describe the issue both because it’s a good phrase, and also because you can demonstrate that the Republicans feigning outrage were singing a different tune when they were in power.
Gee, I think tossing your daughter out of the family home because she came out of the closet is the epitome of evil. Alan Keyes, on his blog “Alan Keyes is LOYAL TO LIBERTY,” has a frothing-at-the-mouth post about Notre Dame’s invitation to the president to speak and receive an honorary degree. The failed U.S. Senate and presidential candidate cannot believe his former rival, the “child sacrifice” advocate in the White House, will darken the door of the Catholic university.
Apparently the Catholic folks at Notre Dame University have no more respect for the Baptismal vows they renew every Easter than their invited Commencement Speaker this year has for the Presidential Oath of Office. At this moment in time, Barack Obama is the living incarnation of the glamour of evil. His smiley tones and non-threatening manner mask a studied commitment to the promotion of the most deadly form of evil in the world today- the cult of abortion centered on the ritual of child sacrifice. Obama has moved with impetuous determination to prove his claim to the mantle of High Priest of the Worldwide Abortion cult. With Executive orders he has shifted the resources of the U.S. government behind the global implementation of abortion. He has declared open season on embryonic human life. He has appointed enthusiastic political and judicial acolytes of this cult of death to high positions in the Executive and Judicial branches.
Even before these actions there was no rational basis for pretending to doubt his absolute commitment to the evil of abortion for its own sake. There can be no other explanation for his opposition, while an Illinois state Senator, to the bipartisan effort in the legislature to end the heinous practice of infanticide against innocent babies- delivered in the course of an abortion attempt; wrapped in soiled linens; and left on a cart to languish without medical care or any human comfort until they died. His only real explanation for refusing to support an end to this abominable practice was the cold-blooded logic that any interference with the mother’s intention to kill the child would damage so-called abortion rights.
...Barack Obama is the incarnation of what the Catholic Church identifies as the epitome of evil in the world today. What Notre Dame has done puts the stamp of Catholicity upon him, as if there is no absolute contradiction between what he advocates and represents and what can honorably be presented from platforms that benefit from the auspices of the Church. A Commencement speech represents a word spoken at the beginning of a new stage of life. In the literal sense it represents a principle for thought and action. Are we seriously to believe that some morally truthful argument can be made that justifies presenting Barack Obama in a Catholic context, as one who speaks for decent moral principle? It is sophomoric to suggest that any good thing he promises, promotes or even implements can compensate for his declared war upon the very principle of goodness, which is nowhere more clearly at stake than in the law of love that shrouds, protects and sanctifies our reverence for innocent human life. What Catholic theology makes good the rationalization that good works somehow supply the deficiency of a spirit and will that in the innocent person of the child, defile and abuse the very image of God Himself?
You can surf over to read the rest of the womb-controlling rant; the hypocrisy of his touting of pious familiy values is astounding, given what he’s said and done in his own family.
I briefly mentioned this in my post from earlier today, but Atrios said something similar, so I thought I’d flesh it out a bit. (Just a bit; taking off to do some book-writing tonight.)
I’ve written before that I think part of the problem that conservatives/Republicans face is that their mythology has become a bit too complex for mere mortals (people who don’t listen to Limbaugh and read The Corner obsessively) to comprehend. They reference rogues’ gallery of enemies and various “bad things” that most people have never heard of. Simply trying to navigate through the various wingnutty minefields while throwing out the appropriate red meat has become difficult to do, and the result is incomprehensible to most of the country.
Volcano monitoring! High speed rail!
I said something similar last night after the speech to Marc—-the amount of code language that Republicans have to use to communicate their ideas is getting so thick as to be incomprehensible. Even in 2004, when Bush was talking about Dred Scott during a debate as a way to hint at his extreme anti-choice views without coming out and saying it, things were better. Soon it’s going to be so bad that they’ll have to give their speeches entirely with “You knows” and hand gestures. Conservatives have a major issue. The reason they feel under attack is that the dominant values of the country are officially liberal—-it’s bad to be racist, sexist, or homophobic, it’s bad to suggest poor people are subhuman, etc. Couple that with the perception, often correct, that the actual dominant values of the country are sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-poor, etc. (Though less so all the time.) People don’t like to be thought of as sexist or racist, but they want to hang onto their beliefs, and Republicans need to communicate with those people. But how to do it without coming out and saying it?
Steven Pinker should be given a weekly column in the New York Times to write about the foibles of language pedants and why they’re usually wrong, for two major reasons:
1) He’s good at it.
2) It would occupy his time so that he’d have less of it for pushing badly researched, half-baked, but wholly sexist evo psych theories about Why Women Suck And Are Stupid, theories which perversely end up arguing the case that Steven Pinker Sucks And Is Stupid. Which isn’t true, as long as he sticks to what he knows, which is language.
His recent column in the Times is why I think he should get this regular column. (Hat tip to Darcy for emailing the link.) He tackles the “split infinitive” myth and suggests that pedantry and not politics is why Justice Roberts flubbed the oath of office, which is written as “to faithfully execute” instead of “to execute faithfully”. Which means that if the Constitution had blog comments, the Founders would have been besieged with grumpy complaints about how kids these days can’t write a grammatical sentence.
To the grammar nazis out there, consider this: John Roberts is a grammar nazi/language pedant of the highest order. It’s part of Robert’s larger loathing of the earthiness of humanity and of other expressions of that humanity such as relaxing, having a genuine smile, and sleeping in a bed with your spouse instead of in a cryogenic tank designed to keep you alive until you’re 160 years old. Witness the horrors of raw right wing authoritarianism:
In his legal opinions, Chief Justice Roberts has altered quotations to conform to his notions of grammaticality, as when he excised the “ain’t” from Bob Dylan’s line “When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.”
Is there enough material like this to justify a weekly column? I think so. Our language is changing fast to reflect a fast-moving world, which means that the language pedants who prefer to keep language in a crystallized form that never really existed (including unsplit infinitives and everything!) have more reasons to have minor aneurysms on an hourly basis. I could see so many Pinker columns, including one praising the efficiency of text messaging grammar, one defending new coinages stemming from the internet, and maybe even one suggesting that our language would be better off if you could use the word “ain’t” as a contraction for “am not”.
This week, I was doing some research on the surge in rhetoric about repealing the 14th amendment for the podcast,* and I have to admit that even I was astounded to hear how Fox News’ preferred nomenclature for people who immigrate here without going through the green card/citizenship channels is “illegals”. Just “illegals”. Not “illegal immigrants”, and of course not “undocumented immigrants” or “undocumented workers”. 
Catching up on reading Balloon Juice, 
Steven Pinker should be given a weekly column in the New York Times to write about the foibles of language pedants and why they’re usually wrong, for two major reasons: