« And He Didn’t Even Need a Gun | Main | Phil Gramm on CEO Remuneration »
June 26, 2008
Your English Teacher was Right – Knowledge and Use of the Language Matters
Ultimately, it is only the public that holds the power to enforce professional standards, and therefore each of us must accept this responsibility. - James Kerian
by Tina Grazier
Today as I pondered the latest Supreme Court decisions I was acutely aware of the importance of language and communication. I considered the great care taken by our founders to get each and every word, phrase, and punctuation mark exactly right so that the meaning would be clear. They did not run from debate and they did not affix their signatures until all could agree that the document was solid, resolute, defensible, and complete. Our Constitution was written by men with a profound respect for the written word. It has been lauded around the world for its greatness. Still, today, we find that Supreme Court Justices cannot agree on it’s meaning. I submit that the problem isn’t with the Constitution but with the layers of complex, often conflicting laws that confound and frustrate even the most highly educated men. Our laws, lacking in simplicity and clarity, have become unmanageable things, sometimes so complex that we find they contradict each other. It could be said that our laws have failed to serve us to the degree that lawmakers have failed to retain a similar healthy respect for the language.
But it isn’t lawmakers alone that participate in this colossal failure.
Language is used to educate our children and prepare young people to become responsible adults as they take their places in society. The failures in education have touched every area of society: business and the arts, science and the law, even the service we get from fast food workers and retailers. Likewise, language is used every day to bring information and facts to the American people through the media. A population that has not been adequately informed will fail to bring pressures to bear on elected officials that spring from a sense of clarity.
A revolution has been occurring in our nation; a revolution gaining in strength but facing fierce opposition. It is a revolution to reclaim the English language and to create healthy expectations for excellence in the use of our language. We wish to effect every area of our society but specifically in education, the writing of law and its interpretation, and in journalism.
A very fine and informative article helped to inspire these thoughts tonight. It was written by a mechanical engineer and small business owner living in Grafton, North Dakota. The quote at the top of the page, taken from the article, serves as a call to arms. The article touches on the effects that irresoinsible and inaccurate use of language has had on journalism and our society and the fact that it has now spread to the world of science. Those of you who are interested in the destruction that follows the loss of our language, a condition that permeates our society, will want to read “Yellow Science,” by James Kerian posted in The Wall Street Journal:
In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers. ** Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science.
Posted by Post Scripts at June 26, 2008 10:27 PM
Comments
"No, no, no. I won't get out of my car! I won't. I won't. I won't. You can't make me!"
Did you hear how there ain't gonna be no polar ice up north this year?
Posted by: Libby at June 27, 2008 09:35 AM
Libby I think you inadvertantly posted to the wrong article, however...
NO ONE on the conservative side has suggested that changes won't come but changes should come gradually as we address problems.
My father in law was working on a battery for vehicular power in the late seventies and early eighties. A lot of really smart people have been working on "alternative" fueling ideas for a half a century...and we have zip zero nadda of any significance to show for it. We still do not have an adequate battery to power a car and maybe we never will.
Technological change doesn't happen just because you want it right now either.
Government policy incited by hysterical people demanding change will only make a mess of things. You are incredibly short sighted and naive if you think we will be able to "get out" of our vehicles "right now". The whole economy would collapse and rampant poverty would be the result. Even government jobs would disappear...nobody to pay taxes for those salaries....money doesn't grow on trees.
NEWSFLASH: The polar ice is greater this year than it was last year, but...
It's an election year so they wouldn't bother to tell you that. In fact you might not have heard about the ice at all except for the fact that the "sky is falling" crowd wants votes for Obama.
Ever heard of Greenland? It's all ice and snow so why do you suppose they call it that? Hear's another newsflash: weather happens; the earth goes through naturally occurring cycles.
Posted by: Tina at June 27, 2008 10:52 AM
Hey, wait a minute!
Scientific evidence which suggests that the global warming crowd may have exaggerated just a tinsy bit on the whole "premise" of their argument is no reason to throw away their solutions!
After all, they weren't really "environmental solutions" anyway. It was simply the same tired old economic policy they have been pushing for years, which cant seem to pass on its own merits.
No what they needed was a crisis!
But ah shucks, we don't have a crisis!
We'll just make one up!
Great idea! somebody get this washed up has-been a Noble Peace Prize and a gift certificate for some carbon offsets!
Posted by: Nick Freitas at June 27, 2008 11:57 AM
On the contrary. Do you not realize what all this Global Warming denial is about? I was pointing it out ... again.
There's nothing "yellow" about scientists discussing a theory in public. Just to be clear, there is no arguing with the fact that the planet is warming. It is a measurable fact. The theory is that we are warming it with our greenhouse gases and had better stop before the place becomes uninhabitable.
The "no, no, I won't, I won't" crowd are telling themselves that it not us, it's "God's will" or something, so they can go on in their merry, wasteful way until the end. Not a very responsible attitude, if you ask me.
Posted by: Libby at June 27, 2008 12:25 PM
I'm one of those wackos who believes that solar activity has far more to do with our climate than human causes.
Libby says: "Not a very responsible attitude, if you ask me."
Libby when you can answer a simple question about the intrinsic value of human life, maybe Ill give a little more credence to what you consider a "reasonable attitude". Until then I'm afraid your credibility has been measured and found wanting.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at June 28, 2008 12:06 PM
You don't want to argue my facts? I know I'm not going to change your opinion, nor you mine. But you don't even want to argue my facts? You're not going to tell me it got hot once in 1863?
Bummer.
Posted by: Libby at June 30, 2008 03:49 PM
Libby I wonder if your arguments would be more effective if you were to say "Blah, blah blah..."
You would save a lot of time and energy while using the same amount of brain power you usually do.
Except this way you will have the added benefit of never saying anything which reveals your lack of reasoning and overall intelligence...
Posted by: Marie T. at June 30, 2008 04:29 PM
Libby i would love for you to present facts, just for a change of pace soooo
I say again...
I'm one of those wackos who believes that solar activity has far more to do with our climate than human causes.
Libby says: "Not a very responsible attitude, if you ask me."
Libby when you can answer a simple question about the intrinsic value of human life, maybe Ill give a little more credence to what you consider a "reasonable attitude". Until then I'm afraid your credibility has been measured and found wanting.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at July 1, 2008 12:48 PM
Libby says: "You don't want to argue my facts? I know I'm not going to change your opinion, nor you mine. But you don't even want to argue my facts? You're not going to tell me it got hot once in 1863?
Bummer."
I cant believe I almost missed this!
Hey Libby, what exactly are "Libby's facts"
Facts are by definition, truths, truths are by definition, exclusive.
Therefore, there really is no such thing as "Libby facts", there are just "facts" if we are using the same English language.
If however, you would also like to use "Libby English" to discuss "Libby Facts" maybe you could send me a translator.
In fact, this may be a huge breakthrough!
Perhaps this whole Time Libby had actually agreed with us, she was simply using "Libby English" to discuss her "Libby facts", which in her parallel "string theory" universe, could mean just about anything.
While we are on the subject Libby, can I take your dedication to "facts" as evidence that you subscribe to the notion of absolutes? You know, Law of non-contradiction and all that?
Posted by: Nick Freitas at July 2, 2008 05:29 AM
Wait a minute Nick. Libby is right about one thing. She made a statement we did not address:
The theory is that we are warming it with our greenhouse gases and had better stop before the place becomes uninhabitable.
Her "fact" is that we were addressing the wrong theory. The theory that man is the major cause of the other theory.
Of course using one unproven theory to try to convince the public that another unproven theory is an emergency is not responsible science reporting. It is intimidation using deceitful means.
Posted by: Tina at July 2, 2008 08:02 AM