those who write poorly b/c they understand writing should be different from their poor informal speech, but who mimic "sophistication." They're equally bad and incomprehensible; however the latter also suffer the disease of pretension.

These people are the worst, since they are convinced that their writing is impeccable. An uppity tone with long, confusing prepositional phrases makes for terrible writing.

Dave makes a good point, in the sense that I spend an enormous amount of class time having them talk, but in structured ways, such that they learn to construct a coherent argument verbally--a medium more comfortable for them than writing.

Most everyone spends far more time speaking than writing. Effective communication is far more important than having technically precise writing.

I have graded papers of undergraduates and first year law school students. Most of the errors are due to poor structure and understanding. Spelling and grammar are merely symptoms of deeper problems.

I don't know how David can demand such an exacting standard on the resumes. In many cases, resumes are written using their own rules, e.g. using action clauses rather than complete sentences.

I agree with JC that having the technical ability and discipline to write in multiple styles will lead to greater writing proficiency. Moreover, if the objective of an educational exercise is to master a certain style, then the papers should be graded based on the proficiency with that style. If the objective is to communicate information, then small technical details should not matter.

I wouldn't say "poorly" per se, but it is a different mode of communication.

Yes, but sometimes a difference is precisely between poor and not poor things. Don't you think some of the problem traces to a reluctance to speak about language normatively (as evidenced by your response)? Language is meant to communicate ideas; the communication of ideas requires language rules. We've seen, for instance, our culture vacillate on the question of the rule governing infinitive splitting, from the normativity of Strunk and White and Fowler's to the laxity of many contemporary texts and thinkers (What does it matter?). The odd yet predictable thing is that now you and I deal with many writers who have no idea WHAT a split infinitive is, let alone that there is or was a rule governing its use. I can't help but view that as a decline in language comprehension, one related to the problems we're discussing.

Hey, it's BL. I hope things are going well.

Agree, BL. I tell my students that all the time; for instance, I don't quibble about footnote style so long as the student adopts a uniform and clear style throughout.

Writing and speaking aren't really similar exercises. Two completely different uses of language.

I take it that's a no, DMN? You should check out his blog, "The Sixth International." He knows RETARDO (HTML Mencken) from Sadly, No and writes occasionally for Fistful of Euros. You'd hate his stuff (in a fun way).

Oh, I've seen Fistful of Euros before, though it isn't one of my regular hangouts and I'm not familiar enough with it to recognize all the contributors. But if he's part of the Sadly, No crowd, either as a member or groupie, I don't think I'd hate it in a fun way.

If the objective is to communicate information, then small technical details should not matter.

Isn't effective communication the goal of all writing, regardless of style?

Writing and speaking aren't really similar exercises. Two completely different uses of language.

Uh, huh? OTOH, no ####; OTOH, no, ####. As BL said they're united by the shared goal of communication; as such, they'll share syntax, words, and other components of language, won't they?

I can't help but view that as a decline in language comprehension, one related to the problems we're discussing.

Many times, the devolution of a rule is an evolution of a new linguistic culture. "Is You Is or Is You Ain't My Baby" connoted a different meaning than "Are you my girlfriend?" Quite often, we also hold onto rules for no aesthetic or utilitarian reason.

I am reminded of a controversy a few years ago regarding case citations. As you may know, lawyers identify citations using cryptic set of rules. The most widely accepted version is the Bluebook. A competing version is ALWD. Now that many states publish cases online and accept electronic filing, you can hyperlink case citations. The only purpose of the case citation is to help the reader locate the case to either check your usage or obtain additional information. Judges rarely use them. Their clerks will kill a few trees printing or copying the cases for the judges. Nevertheless, some courts will still demand strict adherence to Bluebook forms even when other citation methods would be more utilitarian. (In some cases, they may also demand courier 10 point fonts, double spaced text, and binding requirements that would confuse an S&M;practitioner.)

At some point, the structural rules are no longer about communication, they become about an elitism in the audience receiving the materials.

In many cases, resumes are written using their own rules, e.g. using action clauses rather than complete sentences.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with typos, spelling mistakes, even grammatical mistakes.

I also toss resumes with these types of mistakes. I don't conclude that the person can't do better; I conclude that the person couldn't be bothered to do better.

At some point, the structural rules are no longer about communication, they become about an elitism in the audience receiving the materials.

I guess this is true and possible, but I don't think elitism applies if the language rules are available to all and are not rooted in issues of closed communities. Certainly, for instance, having a particular kind of pronunciation can be elitist (classist, in particular), much as can be seen in distinctions b/c cockney and higher English pronunciation. But, OTOH, rules about language use are not elitist by virtue of their being normative. Normative is not reducible to elitist (though this is obviously what we're arguing and I'm merely asserting). The adoption of these rules is available to all, even if they predominate in certain communities. They evince understanding and competence in the language, not elitism, as an Oxbridge accent does.

Isn't effective communication the goal of all writing, regardless of style?

Wide stretches of literature are not really about effective communication. Even something as popular and conventional as a whodunit novel, as Pierre Bayard argues, is about trying to avoid effective communication (to show and conceal the solution at the same time). One could argue that political rhetoric is often about revealing and concealing, or sometimes is "effective" when it obfuscates the plain meaning. I guess it depends on what you mean by "effective." The purpose of writing is not always to communicate.

The purpose of writing is not always to communicate.

As anyone who's read Jacques Lacan knows.

Uh, huh? OTOH, no ####; OTOH, no, ####. As BL said they're united by the shared goal of communication; as such, they'll share syntax, words, and other components of language, won't they?

That's true but they require different parts of the brain to function. Usually, if two skills are related, if you can do one well, you can usually do the other well. Writing and speaking seem to be uncoupled that way. I've known some people who speak beautifully who come of as bland and uninspiring on paper. Alternatively, there are plenty of people who can write with great clarity and depth who come off as stiff and clumsy verbally.

Writing and speaking aren't really similar exercises. Two completely different uses of language.

That doesn't matter. They share the same purpose, and they have shared components. There are two things that are important:

(1) Transferring information to your desired audience;
(2) Producing the desired aesthetic or emotional response associated with that message.

Often, the stylized rules help promote both of those goals. You can follow every rule and still fail to achieve those goals. You can also break the rules and accomplish both of the goals.

As JC mentioned, its rare that someone will break the rules frequently and accomplish those goals. Nevertheless, you will find auteres that can create their own sets of rules or move in what appears to be free form association. Most of them can also communicate inside a rules based framework, but occasionally, you find those that cannot.

Even something as popular and conventional as a whodunit novel, as Pierre Bayard argues, is about trying to avoid effective communication (to show and conceal the solution at the same time).

OK, so then the skill is communicating the feeling of mystery and ambiguity. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I don't know how David can demand such an exacting standard on the resumes. In many cases, resumes are written using their own rules, e.g. using action clauses rather than complete sentences.

I didn't say I had a problem with that; that isn't the gravamen of my criticism at all. With resumes, I was mostly addressing the issue of typographical errors. If it's a resume and is done in "resume style," that's fine. But when the entries purport to be complete sentences and aren't, that's a problem. Or when the "action clauses" are not grammatical (not counting the fact that they aren't intended to be whole sentences), that's problematic.

Certainly, for instance, having a particular kind of pronunciation can be elitist (classist, in particular), much as can be seen in distinctions b/c cockney and higher English pronunciation. But, OTOH, rules about language use are not elitist by virtue of their being normative. Normative is not reducible to elitist (though this is obviously what we're arguing and I'm merely asserting).

I largely agree, but I can think of many counterexamples.

(1) The demand for Bluebook cites rather than ALWD or hyperlinks (my previous post).

(2) IMHO, the tossing of resumes for misspelling. You can hire a legal assistant (can we still say secretary?) for small money to fix those problems. Despite what they tell me to teach law students, a misspelled word will rarely be outcome determinative. More important, it appears the spelling disqualification is because there is a belief that the spelling will correlate to a persons intelligence, work ethic or ability as an attorney. I doubt that is true. In many cases, the spelling error could be due to a cognitive difficulty that is not going to effect a work function.

(3) The formalized and procedural demands of some systems, particularly legal systems. They exist because of tradition and may have previously had utility. Now, many of them just serve to prevent access to the law by the common man. In some cases, they are just arcane rules by the current administration to make their life easier (e.g., most local court rules). It would be hard for anyone to comply unless they forced themselves through rote practice to do such things, and even harder for lay people to actually find the rules.

Those three items may be examples in the legal community, but I am certain similar constructs and barriers exist in every social circle.

the skill is communicating the feeling of mystery and ambiguity

Not exactly. I agree that just conveying a weird impression would be an effective communication of that impression. The whodunit (the Agatha Christie, Ellery Queen, Dorothy Sayers type), though, presents an unambiguous crime and then tries to mess up its tracks so that you (a) can't see it and (b) can't complain later that you couldn't have seen it.

At some point, the structural rules are no longer about communication, they become about an elitism in the audience receiving the materials.

About an elitism, and also certainly used in order to insulate the practice from all comers, by creating an arcana the general public has to pay the practitioners to navigate.

Didn't Ford Madox Ford say something like, 'why shouldn't poetry be baffling'?

Then there's the literature of Zen, the aim of which is never clarity in the sense discussed here.

And then there's the woman I dated for a while and broke up with in part because I got incredibly tired of untangling her speech. She might mention five different woemn during the course of a paragraph, then add, "and she said..." I got so bloody tired of figuring out what the #### my girlfriend was talking about.

edit: ah--BL got to the point on law before me in 3219, only smarter

Good god, I agree. Do a simple experiment. Tape a short conversation, then transcrbe it, with pauses and errors and all. You won't beleive how bad it comes out on paper.

I should clarify my original comment. Obviously, if people wrote the way they speak, with all the pauses and "umms" and "likes", it wouldn't come out well on paper. But the reason people make those pauses and interjections isn't because they don't know how to speak, it's because they're forming their thoughts as they express them. The vast majority of people know what good speech sounds like, and if they wrote the way they spoke, they would know to fix that kind of stuff. (Also, I think most people are capable of speaking better than they do on a regular basis, and you can see this when they speak in a more formal setting as opposed to with their friends).

What I really meant in my original post was that most people can tell when something does or doesn't sound right. If they actually read their papers out loud, or had someone read the papers to them, they'd recognize a lot of the basic errors. (I used to advise students to read their paper out loud at least once before handing it in. I don't know whether it was really effective, because I rarely saw the final versions.)

Doing this won't make people great or even good writers, but I think it does help them avoid being terrible writers. I think it gets them to a point where at least the quality of the writing isn't obscuring their argument, even if it isn't necessarily helping.

Oh, incidentally, what do you mean by "native intelligence"?

By native I mean the goods a person is born with: congenital; innate; inherent. By intelligence I mean IQ. (I don't believe IQ is a full measure of intelligence, as I noted earlier in this thread. However, it largely captures what a student needs to succeed in the classroom.)

FWIW, I have a personal anecdote about the heritability of IQ.* My father died when I was just seven years old. Because he was a workaholic and an avid golfer, he was not home much when I was a child and I have almost no memories of him. It's hard to say what interactions we had which had an influence on my personality or development. Yet, we happen to have the exact same IQ. I learned what my IQ number was when my high school gave me copies of everything in my file upon graduation; and I knew his from his Army documents.

* If my recollection of The Bell Curve is correct, psychologists believe IQ is 80 percent inherited and 20 percent nurtured.

I didn't say I had a problem with that; that isn't the gravamen of my criticism at all. With resumes, I was mostly addressing the issue of typographical errors. If it's a resume and is done in "resume style," that's fine. But when the entries purport to be complete sentences and aren't, that's a problem. Or when the "action clauses" are not grammatical (not counting the fact that they aren't intended to be whole sentences), that's problematic.

I am not trying to demean your example. I hope it doesn't look like I'm picking a fight with you or Ray b/c you are common adversaries.

I agree and understand that people will be in positions where they must select resources and must make those selections based on small amounts of information. It is natural and understandable to want to choose someone with a good work ethic and who is attentive to detail in most any profession.

If you have someone that clearly threw a resume over the wall, I can understand the disqualification. If you have someone that has made a minor number of errors, I would believe the entirety of their education and experience would still control the selection.

At some point, the structural rules are no longer about communication, they become about an elitism in the audience receiving the materials.

But they're about uniformity. Any reasonable choice of citation style can successfully communicate the necessary information, but it's much easier on the reader -- which is the appropriate benchmark -- if everyone adopts the same style.

If the issue is one of creative expression, breaking the "rules" is one thing (as along as one understands what one is doing and why), but if one's ultimate goal is communication of information and ideas, then following the rules -- even if seemingly silly in particular instances -- is important.

If you have someone that clearly threw a resume over the wall, I can understand the disqualification. If you have someone that has made a minor number of errors, I would believe the entirety of their education and experience would still control the selection.

That would be fine if the only issue were technical competence. If the entirety of someone's education and experience reveals that he likely is capable of writing well, then I wouldn't think him incompetent merely because of a few minor errors.

But if he's capable of producing perfect work and doesn't on his resume, I would think him lazy and careless, and would severely downgrade, if not immediately disqualify, him for that reason. I don't want people working with/for me who make careless errors. And if one's resume isn't important enough to oneself to proofread meticulously, then it's unlikely that the legal memoranda or contracts one produces will be.

rr,

I am doing well. Thanks for asking. I hope all is well for you and your A's loving, steroid injecting, band of saberists.

As JC mentioned, its rare that someone will break the rules frequently and accomplish those goals.

Ever listen to Christopher Walken speak? He repeats himself, he places adjectives in the wrong place, he emphasizes the wrong words, he inexplicably pauses in the middle of sentences, and he will sometimes stop midsentence and then go off on an unrelated and often bizarre tangent.

But despite that, everybody can remember his lines, almost verbatim, after only hearing them once. That's very effective communication and he breaks all the friggn' rules. Every one of them.

FWIW, I have a personal anecdote about the heritability of IQ.* My father died when I was just seven years old. Because he was a workaholic and an avid golfer, he was not home much when I was a child and I have almost no memories of him. It's hard to say what interactions we had which had an influence on my personality or development. Yet, we happen to have the exact same IQ. I learned what my IQ number was when my high school gave me copies of everything in my file upon graduation; and I knew his from his Army documents.

The Flynn Effect says you're dumber than your father.

Didn't Ford Madox Ford say something like, 'why shouldn't poetry be baffling'?

I don't know about poetry but his name sure is.

I don't want people working with/for me who make careless errors. And if one's resume isn't important enough to oneself to proofread meticulously, then it's unlikely that the legal memoranda or contracts one produces will be.

I understand the sentiment, but in legal memoranda, contracts, and other legal work product, the omission of information or clauses or the insertion of information or clauses is far more important than spelling or grammar.

In my experience, you can find quite a lot of law review veterans that can spit back boilerplate with perfect grammar and spelling, but often do not have the ability to even understand the deal. As you can see on this very forum, you can find sweeping and colorful uses of language with little or no technical mistakes that fail to address the crux of the issue. Sometimes that is deliberate and meant for obfuscation, but sometimes its just because the people writing can't do the J-O-B.

DAVID: "In the first case, a typo still reflects poorly on the letter writer, but if you send out scores of relatively routine letters, a typo will slip through every now and then; nobody is perfect."

You meant, of course, this:

"In the first case, a typo still reflects poorly on the letter writer. But if you send out scores of relatively routine letters, a typo will slip through every now and then: nobody is perfect."

JC re: DMN: "I hope your parents are as proud of you as you are."

Perhaps my favorite Yiddish word is naches. (The ch is pronounced gutturally, making the sound of throat-clearing.) It means "the proud pleasure a parent feels from the achievments of a child." I've never known a Yiddishe mamma who did not have naches for her kids.

I've never known any Yiddishe mammas who did not have naches for their kids.

Mrs. Berkowitz?

You meant, of course, this:

Modern usage would probably require an em dash rather than a colon.

Nevertheless, this is a great example. David's choice of punctuation:

(1) Does not reduce or alter the message in any meaningful way for his intended audience;
(2) Does not correlate to his ability as a thinker, writer, or lawyer; and
(3) Is a pure matter of form over substance.

Mrs. Berkowitz?

He disowned her. He just identified himself with his father Samuel.

I understand the sentiment, but in legal memoranda, contracts, and other legal work product, the omission of information or clauses or the insertion of information or clauses is far more important than spelling or grammar.

Well, of course, but it's not either/or; there's no need to make a tradeoff (*). Indeed, the skills are complementary; the sort of person who makes spelling and grammar errors (i.e., stupid, lazy, and/or careless) is more likely to omit the requisite information or clauses.


EDIT: (*) Since we were discussing Princeton earlier, the recently-retired Dean of Admissions used to tell a story about parents of prospective applicants who would always ask him whether it was more important for their children to have a perfect GPA or to take the most advanced gifted and AP classes. Dean Hargadon's response was, "Both."

3227

14th all time

Next to pass: Nap Lajoie, 3242.

Yes, but when we get to 3,241 someone will let Lajoie beat out a bunch of bunts and stay ahead of us.

GUY: "Far more likely is that conservative voices in our society will attribute some or all of what goes wrong in our country during his presidency -- and of course, things always go wrong -- to his alleged favoritism to blacks."

I hope this is wrong. My expectation is that conservatives (in the Rush Limbaugh school) will bash Obama for his big-government, liberal policy choices, not claiming those policies are biased to favor black Americans at the expense of everyone else. I would not be surprised, though, if Obama doesn't worry about such charges, false though they may be. And that worry may translate into having fewer prominent blacks in his cabinet (than say Clinton had), fewer blacks appointed to lesser jobs and fewer black court nominees.... Time will tell.

Nevertheless, this is a great example. David's choice of punctuation:

(1) Does not reduce or alter the message in any meaningful way for his intended audience;
(2) Does not correlate to his ability as a thinker, writer, or lawyer; and
(3) Is a pure matter of form over substance.

Also, I'm not applying for a job based on my BTF posts; when I post here I just write the way I speak. If I were -- though what sort of job that would be, I couldn't begin to venture a guess -- I would put more care into my writing. (That having been said, Rich's corrections were matters of style, not grammar; I wouldn't necessarily accept his suggestions in any case.)

I hope all is well for you and your A's loving, steroid injecting, band of saberists

.

That's Obama-loving, race-baiting, band of whiny liberal educators to you, pal.

"A husband and wife don't necessarily have to have the same likes, but they must share their basic raw hatreds, or else the marriage can't succeed over the long term."

Hatreds? Unless those hatreds are limted to the obvious (child abuse, genocide, toxic waste and the Lakers), I don't think most normal people are walking around full of hatred(s).

When it comes to political issues, I know of many (seemingly) happy couples where one partner (usually the man) is conservative and the other is liberal. However, politics are not all-consuming for them. Among the one thousand things they think and talk about most, Democrats and Obama or conservatives and Limbaugh fall way down the list.

I do agree that, if two people are actively and passionately interested in politics yet vehemently disagree with each other, it would be hard to be married.... But there is one of those couples which regularly appears on Meet the Press and other such forums.

I hope this is wrong. My expectation is that conservatives (in the Rush Limbaugh school) will bash Obama for his big-government, liberal policy choices, not claiming those policies are biased to favor black Americans at the expense of everyone else. I would not be surprised, though, if Obama doesn't worry about such charges, false though they may be. And that worry may translate into having fewer prominent blacks in his cabinet (than say Clinton had), fewer blacks appointed to lesser jobs and fewer black court nominees.... Time will tell.

I can't imagine there will be any significant differences. Obama would be drawing from the same basic talent/patronage pool that the first Clinton was and that this Clinton would be if she gets elected. (I assume Obama isn't planning to appoint any black nationalists.)

Moreover, in terms of policies, Obama would also be drawing from the same "pool" that Clinton would be. They'll be facing the same Congress and the same governmental fiscal situation and the same lobbyists, and they have the same basic liberal priorities. It's not as if Obama is pro-affirmative action and other Democrats are against it; that's pretty much liberal orthodoxy.

I don't think he'll receive any different treatment from conservative commentators than Clinton would because I don't think he'll do anything different than Clinton would. Not even Ann Coulter at her most flamboyant and attention-seeking is likely to make an issue of Obama's race. (At least once the MSM stops doing so; I expect she and Rush and others will mock the media's obsession with it in the days/weeks after the election/inauguration.)

(2) IMHO, the tossing of resumes for misspelling. You can hire a legal assistant (can we still say secretary?) for small money to fix those problems.

The problem is that secretaries are typically worse at spelling, punctuation, grammar, and attention to detail than attorneys are (especially those secretaries being paid small money, and especially those secretaries working for new attorneys). They can rarely be bothered to even implement marked changes correctly, let alone correct an attorney's errors.

Of course, some secretaries are better than others.

But then the partners snatch them up.

"I am sure Rich will really kick my ass over the homophone/homonym thing. I have an excuse, though, in that one of my degrees is from UC San Diego."

I am feeling that Triton love.

Homonym: I will rail against you if you killed that rail I saw perched on your fence rail.

Homophone: a pink cell phone.

No, it isn't. Arguing that your opponent's policies encourage or cause destruction, poverty and oppression in other countries and incite anti-Americanism and terror is an appeal to morality and basic humanity as well as self-interest (or "fear").

It's also got that "accuracy" thing going for it, but that's probably not what matters in this election.

"The Flynn Effect says you're dumber than your father."

Because of renormalization, this may not be true. My dad was 45 years old when I was born. He took the IQ test roughly that many years before I did. Because (as the Flynn Effect suggests) average IQ in general has moved up over time, a 145 IQ in my father's day might not be what it was when I was examined. Alternatively, it's probable that on the rightward extremes of IQ there is much less of a Flynn Effect. The improvements in average IQ that Flynn measured were due to improved diets and other environmental factors. However, (I think) my father was raised in as healthy an environment as I was. As such, he and I both likely reached the highest IQ points we could, given our genetics.... All that said, I don't think this coincidence means a whole lot. Had my IQ or his been measured by a different examiner, or a few years earlier or later for one or the other of us, he or I could have been 10 points higher. It's not as if IQ is entirely static or as if the test is perfectly precise.

I hope this is wrong. My expectation is that conservatives (in the Rush Limbaugh school) will bash Obama for his big-government, liberal policy choices, not claiming those policies are biased to favor black Americans at the expense of everyone else.

I wouldn't be surprised, if things go wrong, to see the "Limbaugh school" claim that Obama wasn't competent enough to be President, and that Dems/liberals foolishly voted for him only because he was black.

It's funny that Andy (and our resident conservative) talk about the "fear factor" strategy only of Republicans. As if the Democrats never deliver a fear-based, gloom-based message. Or is there another description for telling people to be afraid of the economy, of corporations, of the housing market, of a "looming climate crisis," of the health care system, of oil companies, of oil, of religion, of the Patriot Act, of SUVs...

. The improvements in average IQ that Flynn measured were due to improved diets and other environmental factors.

This isn't something Flynn claims. I don't know where you're getting it from.

More specifically, I think Flynn talks about "cognitive environments," which is a different thing, and which he sees as highly complex and having the most influence on test-taking. I suppose "environmental factors" might be a small part of that, but he certainly doesn't seem to focus on diet or other health-related issues as paramount.

It's funny that Andy (and our resident conservative) talk about the "fear factor" strategy only of Republicans. As if the Democrats never deliver a fear-based, gloom-based message. Or is there another description for telling people to be afraid of the economy, of corporations, of the housing market, of a "looming climate crisis," of the health care system, of oil companies, of oil, of religion, of the Patriot Act, of SUVs...

Let's not forget the Democratic claims from 2004 that if Bush won, he'd reinstate the draft and we'd see a wave of black churches burning all across the south. Both sides play the fear game with cynical gusto. Republicans almost certainly overstate the threat of terrorism, but at least it's a real threat.

DMN: (That having been said, Rich's corrections were matters of style, not grammar; I wouldn't necessarily accept his suggestions in any case.)

Your first sentence was a run-on:

"In the first case, a typo still reflects poorly on the letter writer, but if you send out scores of relatively routine letters, a typo will slip through every now and then."

Under the rules of English grammar you need* to make those two sentences, separated by a period.

The second problem was not a matter of grammar, but punctuation. You used a semi-colon where a colon (or an em dash) is called for.

"But if you send out scores of relatively routine letters, a typo will slip through every now and then; nobody is perfect."

You can separate two related and balanced sentences with a semi-colon. However, your second sentence is not balanced with your first in this case.

* I am not, of course, saying this is necessary in casual writing on a BTF thread. I was just being pedantic for the sake of pedantry.

"This isn't something Flynn claims. I don't know where you're getting it from."

If not, I stand corrected. I assumed environmental factors were the principal reason for higher mean IQs over time. I thought it was the combination of the exposure to more complicated or urban social structures and things like diet and prenatal nutrition. (I have never read Flynn. I had, though, heard of the Flynn Effect. Maybe it was mentioned in The Bell Curve?) Nevertheless, I still assume renormalization makes it problematic to compare a score of X from one era with a score of X from another era, unless you know the raw data and can figure things out that way....

This problem of comparing IQ eras seems similar in some ways of comparing eras in baseball.

It's funny that Andy (and our resident conservative) talk about the "fear factor" strategy only of Republicans. As if the Democrats never deliver a fear-based, gloom-based message.

Good point. It was after all the Democrats who invented the fearmongering TV attack ad with the "Daisy ad" which implied that Barry Goldwater was a dangerous madman, and that was far more effective than anything that Lee Atwater ever managed to come up with.

I also toss resumes with these types of mistakes. I don't conclude that the person can't do better; I conclude that the person couldn't be bothered to do better.

I'm not sure whether you're speaking specifically about potential lawyers, but I don't think that would be a reasonable assumption for, say, an engineer.

Also, I don't believe that you would do that in every single case -- there are people who care more about getting the job done and if their resume shows them to be obviously and eminently qualified, then sure, why not?

I am feeling that Triton love.

Class of 2006!

I wouldn't be surprised, if things go wrong, to see the "Limbaugh school" claim that Obama wasn't competent enough to be President, and that Dems/liberals foolishly voted for him only because he was black.

Well, I'm pretty sure lots of liberals claim that Bush isn't competent enough to be president, so I don't think that's either a partisan or a racially-charged claim, and it can't become one even if said about a black person. The other part of the statement is, obviously, related to race, but it's a statement about voters' motivations rather than about Obama himself.

(I have no doubt that, if such a statement is made, the MSM and Andy will be saying that it is code for "Obama isn't competent because he's black.")

It's funny that Andy (and our resident conservative) talk about the "fear factor" strategy only of Republicans. As if the Democrats never deliver a fear-based, gloom-based message.

I'd still like to see the "not based on fear, but based on humanity" argument applied to the ad that implied Bush lynched James Byrd.

I have no doubt that, if such a statement is made, the MSM and Andy will be saying that it is code for "Obama isn't competent because he's black."

Even if no such statement is made, Andy will say that it's just understood silence to take place of making the coded statement.

3250-3259 really illustrate the left-wing bias around here.

As Furtado said in the lead-in:

It’s time for all you closet conservatives to open the door and come out into the light.

Jim Furtado

***

Even if no such statement is made, Andy will say that it's just understood silence to take place of making the coded statement.

LIMBAUGH CONSERVATIVE = OBAMA INVEIGHS REV CULT

Part of the secret conspiracy to get Wright!

Let's not forget the Democratic claims from 2004 that if Bush won, he'd reinstate the draft and we'd see a wave of black churches burning all across the south.

Uh, who claimed this?

I see you didn't comment on the substantive point, Robinred.

Uh, who claimed this?

NAACP Ad, July 2004.

Well, I'm pretty sure lots of liberals claim that Bush isn't competent enough to be president, so I don't think that's either a partisan or a racially-charged claim, and it can't become one even if said about a black person. The other part of the statement is, obviously, related to race, but it's a statement about voters' motivations rather than about Obama himself.

Of course a statement about someone's competence is merely a statement about their competence. But I think saying that Obama only got where he is because of his race is a racist statement. If Obama becomes President, it will be because he is a talented candidate, and not because he's black. What happens after the fact during his presidency won't change the fact that he's been a skilled politician and run a good campaign (assuming he continues to do so) irrespective of race.

I also expect in that scenario that the "Limbaugh school" will make broader comments about liberals, affirmative action, and minority accomplishment that will be racist in nature.

By the way, I think this whole "What will conservative do and what will Andy say about it?" game is idiotic. It makes no sense to criticize people for things we imagine they'll say in the future if certain events happen. Better to just wait and observe the events as they unfold, and comment on them then.

Not even Ann Coulter at her most flamboyant and attention-seeking is likely to make an issue of Obama's race.

That's not true, apparently you have no idea how low Ms. Coulter is willing to go...
First off, she does not call him Barack Obama, she calls him "B. Hussein Obama".
Does she call anyone else by their First Initial followed by middle name?

From Ann's 4/9 column:

Since a Chinese graduate student at Columbia University, Minghui Yu, was killed last Friday when black youths violently set upon him, sending him running into traffic to escape, I think B. Hussein Obama ought to start referring to the mind-set of the "typical Asian person."

***

Meanwhile, let's revisit the story about Obama's grandmother being guilty of thinking like a "typical white person." As recounted in Obama's autobiography, the only evidence that his grandmother feared black men comes from Obama's good-for-nothing, chronically unemployed white grandfather...

then there's Ann's 4/2 column:

If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father."

Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...

Nearly every page -- save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life -- is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

And 3/19:

But the "post-racial candidate" thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?
***
We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, "Isn't that cute?" As a post-racial American, I do not believe "the legacy of slavery" gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.

EVERYTHING she writes "about" Obama revolves one way or the other on his race

Before the 2006 elections, Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin endorsed some Democrat (I forget who; don't care), and said on a radio ad that if the Republicans won, "All of Dr. King's work would be lost."

@3265

I just want to know, do you also think President Bush was a talented candidate and skilled politician?

I see you didn't comment on the substantive point, Robin

.

Sorry, dad. I'll try to clean up my act. After all, everyone else around here always answers everything straight up.

Having read a lot of political biography and history, I have never seen any reason nor felt any need to differentiate tactics on an ethical level based on ideology. I think the tactics of a given campaign are a function of the sensibilities of the pol at the top, those of his or her operatives, the issues in play, and polling numbers.

Edit: As a liberal, Repub tactics that I don't like stick in my head more, admittedly, such as Horton and the Swift Boaters.

One instructive example of this is Caro's detailed and memorable description of the Coke Stevenson/Lyndon Johnson Senate campaign in Texas in 1948, in which Caro contrasts Johnson's new, media-driven, big-show, intensely dirty politics vs. the very traditional approach of Stevenson. Stevenson BTW was a fascinating fgure, and I think would in some ways be a true hero to many conservatives if they read Caro's portrait of him.

Once in the Senate, Johnson (by my standards) did some great things, as he did in the house. But he got there any way he could, including by stealing votes, as Caro shows. And it was Johnson of course whose campaign ran the "Daisy ad" Joey referenced.

As to this election, we shall see. Over a year ago, I commented that I was hoping for an Obama/McCain matchup because I thought it would be relatively clean and issue-driven. If Obama gets to the general (and I am not at all sure of that) I am still hopeful for that type of contest but now think it will not go so much that way.

Let's not forget the Democratic claims from 2004 that if Bush won, he'd reinstate the draft and we'd see a wave of black churches burning all across the south

Huh? I follow politics pretty closely, and i don't recall anything like this

NAACP Ad, July 2004.

I think you might be conflating facts here.

It was after all the Democrats who invented the fearmongering TV attack ad with the "Daisy ad" which implied that Barry Goldwater was a dangerous madman, and that was far more effective than anything that Lee Atwater ever managed to come up with.

I wouldnt agree with that. Goldwater was never going to beat Johnson. But, in case you don't remember, Dukakis was crushing Bush by double digit leads when the Willie Horton ad ran.

Some of my more excitable friends, prior to the 2000 election, made a lot of noise about how a Bush presidency would mean the end of legally available abortion, the imposition of Christian theocratic governance, and a new era of American isolationism. Oops.

Of course, all that really goes to show is that you will rarely get accurate predictions on what someone's administration will be like from someone who's adamantly opposed to them on an ideological basis.

Wait, I've located an issue in which a Times writer is cautioning against fear, and instead is advocating a calm, measured approach; the issue of whether there are health risks associated with hybrid vehicles:

Fear, but few Facts, on Hybrid Risk

ALMOST without exception, scientists and policy makers agree that hybrid vehicles are good for the planet. To a small but insistent group of skeptics, however, there is another, more immediate question: Are hybrids healthy for drivers?

There is a legitimate scientific reason for raising the issue. The flow of electrical current to the motor that moves a hybrid vehicle at low speeds (and assists the gasoline engine on the highway) produces magnetic fields, which some studies have associated with serious health matters, including a possible risk of leukemia among children.

...

While Americans live with E.M.F.’s all around — produced by everything from cellphones to electric blankets — there is no broad agreement over what level of exposure constitutes a health hazard, and there is no federal standard that sets allowable exposure levels.

I just want to know, do you also think President Bush was a talented candidate and skilled politician?

Relatively speaking, yes. Or at least, his team ran a better campaign than his opponent's. I also think he had a few things going for him that his opponents didn't. Being white wasn't one of them, of course, but being the son of a former President the first time, and being a wartime incumbent the second time, were.

What do you think?

The Indiana voter ID law in action today:


Nuns lacking ID denied at poll by fellow sister

But, in case you don't remember, Dukakis was crushing Bush by double digit leads when the Willie Horton ad ran.

Cite? I was a young man then, but this is at odds with my recollection -- I don't remember the Duke ever crushing Bush in the polls, even after the infamous Jack Kennedy debate.

Checking myself, looks like my recollection is incorrect -- I found a reference to a 17-point Duke lead at one point. Just goes to show you should never trust a teenager.

What do you think?

I think he was, I just wanted to see if your take on Bush is inconsistent with your take on Obama.

The Indiana voter ID law in action today:


Nuns lacking ID denied at poll by fellow sister

Sounds like the law's working perfectly to me. My only concern was if the election judges would let friendly white people without IDs vote and sending away scary-looking black people. If they're turning away extremely elderly white nuns, probably the least-threatening group around, it's more likely that the law is being applied fairly.

I'd still like to see the "not based on fear, but based on humanity" argument applied to the ad that implied Bush lynched James Byrd.


Szym, you seem to think I claimed that Republicans have a monopoly on negative or fear-based campaigning. I don't think they do. But I disagree with David in that I don't think all campaigning is based on fear, and I thought the examples he used were particularly bad ones.

I'm not familiar with the James Byrd ad you referenced, though, so I can't comment on it. Do you have a link?

It's funny that Andy (and our resident conservative) talk about the "fear factor" strategy only of Republicans. As if the Democrats never deliver a fear-based, gloom-based message. Or is there another description for telling people to be afraid of the economy, of corporations, of the housing market, of a "looming climate crisis," of the health care system, of oil companies, of oil, of religion, of the Patriot Act, of SUVs...

It's even more funny that neither you, nor Joey, nor Dan ever bother to read what I write beyond that which you can selectively quote in order to reinforce your preconceived notions of my beliefs. This selective quoting seems to be a pattern among my conservative friends here.

Just a few hours ago I wrote this:

Well, it certainly is true that in the past 40 years the Republicans (Nixon, Helms, Atwater, Rove, etc., etc.) have pretty much cornered the market of appealing to white racial fears and anxieties. Their all-white congressional delegation is one of the fruits of this repeated practice, which unless McCain puts a rein on it will continue unabated this year.

That said, of course negative campaigning is a fact of political life, engaged in on different levels by both parties, depending on the year and the issue. The Republicans have been running against the 60's for 40 years, which is roughly as long as the Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover. But the coded racial campaigns that even Atwater himself came to regret are a purely Republican phenomenon in the post-civil rights era.

You can still dismiss the idea that the Republicans have pretty much cornered the market in playing to racial fears, but please don't pretend that I'm laying all nasty negative and fearmongering rhetoric on that Party. I've never believed that for a moment.

But pandering to racial fears takes it up a notch, way beyond anything else: economics, terrorism, both sides of the abortion issue, whatever. And don't tell me that a handful of nuts who claim that "Bush killed James Byrd" seriously negates 40 years of all the rest. Too bad that it took a brain tumor for Lee Atwater to see the truth about the damage he'd done.

Sounds like the law's working perfectly to me.

Yep, keeping as many of the infirm and the immobile away from the polls as humanly possible.

Yep, keeping as many of the infirm and the immobile away from the polls as humanly possible.

Nope, keeping people who can't show that they're legal voters from voting. If they're able to get to the polls, they're certainly able to avail themselves of the free ID.

No one ever has a lead in an election until the election is over. Polls are crap.

And whatever you think of how the Horton ad was run, thinking that furloughing a violent criminal was a good idea is relevant info on a candidate.

And don't tell me that a handful of nuts who claim that "Bush killed James Byrd" seriously negates 40 years of all the rest.

OK, save this statement. Andy just officially described the NAACP as a handful of nuts.

I think he was, I just wanted to see if your take on Bush is inconsistent with your take on Obama.

FWIW, I think Bush, once enough time has passed to get perspective on him, will be considered one of the most underestimated politicians in recent history.

Being a good politician isn't the same as a being a good president. And, to be fair, Bush didn't exactly face the Democrats' A-team in either '00 or '04. But the idea that he was a fool and a naif and an idiot chimpanzee who couldn't do anything without Cheney's assistance, I think, is wrong and was actively damaging to the Democrats' attempts to oppose his initiatives.

OK, save this statement. Andy just officially described the NAACP a handful of nuts.

These are the transcripts from the NAACP ads in question, which were read by James Byrd's daughter, and which attacked Bush for not supporting a hate crimes law in Texas. This was the TV version, which ran over B/W pictures of a pickup truck with a chain attached:

On June 7, 1998 in Texas my father was killed. He was beaten, chained, and then dragged 3 miles to his death, all because he was black.

So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.

Call Governor George W. Bush and tell him to support hate-crime legislation.

We won’t be dragged away from our future.

This was the radio ad:

Renee Mullins: I’m Renee Mullins. My father was James Byrd, Jr.

I still have nightmares thinking about him, the day three men chained him behind their pickup truck and dragged him three miles over pavement.

I can see skin being torn away from his body.

I can hear him gasping for air.

I can feel the tears in his eyes, the struggle of his brain as images of his life painfully bang through his head as the links of a heavy chain clinched around his ankles dragging him bump by bump until he was decapitated. [pause]

On June 7, 1998 this happened to my father, all because he was black. I went to Governor George W. Bush and begged him to help pass a hate crimes bill.

He just told me no.

I'm doing this commercial to ask you to call Governor Bush at 512-X and tell him to introduce a hate crimes bill in Texas.

Let him know that our community won't be dragged down by hate crimes.

Those ads ran in the fall of 2000 - I have no idea what July, 2004 ads Joe Crede Clearwater Revival is referring to, which he says predicted a draft and church burnings.

will be considered one of the most underestimated politicians in recent history

.

Maybe, but I deal with hard-core Bush haters daily, and they never talk about him as an inept campaigner etc, nor did they in 2004. Hell, he won twice. Kerry gets that bad pol flak. They do make fun of Bush's speaking skills, but that is not the same as "bad politician."

The deal with Bush as you know/said is that he is often talked about as an idiot, etc. I seldom hear Repubs saying nice things about him anymore, either, although they of course temper it much more.

So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.

Yeah, that's not fear-mongering.

How would the Democrats feel about this ad, if it ran?

When Jimmy Carter talked with Hamas terrorists, it was like my grandmother was gassed all over again.

I seldom hear Repubs saying nice things about him anymore, either, although they of course temper it much more.

Given his polls, I'm not surprised. If I were a Republican, I'd be throwing him under the bus, too, regardless of how I actually felt about him. That's politics.

When Jimmy Carter talked with Hamas terrorists, it was like my grandmother was gassed all over again.

This is fun!

"When Barack Obama voted against free trade with Colombia, it was like a drug cartel murdered my son all over again."

I love ChipApproved© adverts.

I love ChipApproved© adverts.

Umm, all I did was provide the transcripts. I indicated no approval or disapproval of the content.

Can you provide background on the July, 2004 ads you described?

Nope, keeping people who can't show that they're legal voters from voting. If they're able to get to the polls, they're certainly able to avail themselves of the free ID.

No, that's not what this shows. It shows that they cannot establish they're legal voters in this manner. They could have very easily established they're legal voters by their answers to questions about their identity, or by the testimony of their friends, or by their voters' registration cards. I have to place myself among those who are shocked by the libertarians' defense of this unnecessary (and thus unjustified) extension of governance, though I'm not shocked that the extension bears more on the part of the population libertarians seem typically to care least about (i.e., those unlike them [poor, infirm, less educated, etc].

If I recall, the church-burning was from a speech, not an ad.

I don't remember the draft reinstatement being in an ad, but it certainly was said.

Why Bush will restart the draft if re-elected, by Sen. Tom Harkin

Kerry Says President May Bring Back Draft

MSNBC report, "Cleland and Dean tell students that Bush would conscript them and ship them to Iraq"

This selective quoting seems to be a pattern among my conservative friends here.

Don't talk about Arky like that.

Those ads ran in the fall of 2000 - I have no idea what July, 2004 ads Joe Crede Clearwater Revival is referring to, which he says predicted a draft and church burnings.

John Kerry says Bush will Reinstate Draft

Your Life May Depend on it!

I think both parties engage in fearmongering, right?

Monday, September 20, 2004 Posted: 9:59 AM EDT (1359 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top Democrats slapped back Sunday at a remark by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that al Qaeda leaders want Sen. John Kerry to beat President Bush in November.

At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.

When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."

They could have very easily established they're legal voters by their answers to questions about their identity, or by the testimony of their friends, or by their voters' registration cards.

Or, they could establish themselves as legal voter in method less open to fraud. I also don't think one should be able to establish their credentials to drive a car by showing the cop a receipt from the DMV and I also don't think one should be able to establish their credentials to carry a firearm by saying "Hey, my cousin Bill here totally says I'm not a felon."

I think both parties engage in fearmongering, right?


Yes, and not a single non-Democrat hear said otherwise.