Joseph K. meets Alice

...in Wonderland [sic] where they exchange "war" [sic] stories about their own experiences with authority run amok. (Anonymust)

One trial makes you larger,
And one trial makes you small,
And the ones that Obama ordered,
Isn't really a trial at all,
Go ask Ali, when he was just small.

And if you go chasing terrorists,
And you know you're going to fall,
Tell them a Yoo-bah written memo,
Has given you the call,
Call Khalid, when he was ten feet tall.

When the Uighurs in the prison,
Get up and tell you where to go,
And you've just tried to stop due process,
And your court date is moving slow.
Go ask Al Marri, I think he'll know.

When law and due process,
Have all fallen slowly dead,
And the Audacity of Hope is talking backwards,
And the OLC has lost it's head,
Remember, what the AG said,

Reason has fled,
The law is dead.

-- ondelette

Update:

For those who've forgotten the tune

here's the link to the song for which ondelette just provided new lyrics.

-- Jim White

Let the government define?

It's up the Bush Administration,and now the Obama Administration to define words, and NPR's ( & other "journalists") job to adopt those definitions unchallenged? Sheez!!! She actually said that!? Had to listen to it twice, to make sure I heard that.

Re the latest proposed travesty, (as I said back in '01) somebody should inform these depraved a-holes that Kafka didn't intend to write a #!&^#@!!! how-to manual.

-- mikeinportc

Permalink Wednesday, July 8, 2009 12:11 PM

The above comment appeared in a comment thread which accompanies a typically hard-hitting Greenwald post. I was inspired to respond that perhaps we should parody an "official" government-sponsored dictionary.

Please feel free to add the most odious and officious definitions and euphemisms that you have heard of-- or are willing to invent-- in the comments here.

Salon Letter Filter Script

[WARNING: This script can no longer be used due to changes in Salon's Letter format. The new script is here.]
[On 11/10/09 Salon again changed the format of their letter pages. A new script to filter Salon letters is again available here. The old code is left here in case Salon changes the format back again.]
For those who have been unable to install the Salon Letter Filter Greasemonkey script from the link to the file, here is the text of the script. To install, copy everything between //BEGIN CODE and //END CODE into a text file (do not copy //BEGIN CODE and //END CODE). Name the text file salonletterfilter.user.js and save it. Open the file in your browser (you can drag and drop). If Greasemonkey is installed and active, when you open the file a Greasemonkey dialog will appear asking if you want to install the script. Click on install.

IMPORTANT: Your file name must end with .user.js for Greasemonkey to recognize it as a user script.

Do not panic if it appears that the lines of code end in midair on the blog page. It is all there even if it doesn't display because of the Blogger page layout. Simply select the code, copy it, and paste it into a new text file. Notepad or some other fairly simple text editor is recommended for this.

//BEGIN CODE
//
//          MANUAL CONFIGURATION REQUIRED
//
// To configure the letters filter, you must have a "killfile" variable configured.
// A template for this variable is given below.  The "killfile" varable includes a 
// comma-delimited string of the nyms of the authors that you wish to filter out.
// A sample "killfile variable configuration looks like:
//
//            new String(killfile = 'author1,author2,author3');
// or
//            new String(killfile = 'author');
//
// Simply replace the word "authors" in the template below with the nyms of the authors you
// wish to expunge, each one separated by a comma, and save the file.
// Entries are case insensitive. Since the "killfile" will become a regular expression,
// regular expression metacharacters (such as "." or "+") appearing in a nym should be
// preceded by a backslash ("\"; e.g., 'L\.W\.M\.') in order to work properly.
//
   new String(killfile = 'authors');
   if (killfile.length == 0) exit;
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// This is a Greasemonkey user script.
//
// To install, you need Greasemonkey: http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
// Then restart Firefox and revisit this script.
// Under Tools, there will be a new menu item to "Install User Script".
// Accept the default configuration and install.
//
// To uninstall, go to Tools/Manage User Scripts,
// select "Letter_Filter", and click Uninstall.
//
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
//
// ==UserScript==
// @name          Salon Letter filter
// @author        Frankly, my dear, ...
// @namespace     http://language-grammar.blogspot.com/2009/04/filter-for-salon-letters.html
// @description   Filter letters from Salon. WARNING: manual configuration required. Before use you must edit the script and enter your "killfile" in the string variable near the top of the script.
// @include       http://letters.salon.com/*
// @version       0.0.1
// ==/UserScript==

//
//  Set debug to 1 to see debug output in Javascript console
//
var debug = 1;


// 
// Only print information to console if debug is on
//
function myGM_log(args) {
  if (debug == 1) {
    GM_log(args);
  }
}


//
// Shortcut function to evalute an XPath in the document
//
function xpath(query, sourceDoc) {
  return document.evaluate(query, sourceDoc, null, XPathResult.ORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE, null);
}

myregexp = new RegExp(killfile.replace(/, */g, "|"), "i");
myGM_log(myregexp);
var allLets, thisLet, allAuthors, thisAuthor, allFooters, thisFooter;
allLets = xpath("//li[@class='letter_node']",document);
allAuthors = xpath("//div[@class='letter_entry_author'] | //div[@class='letter_entry_author premium']",document);
allFooters = xpath("//div[@class='letter_entry_footer']",document);
for (var i = 0; i < allLets.snapshotLength; i++) {
 thisLet = allLets.snapshotItem(i);
 thisAuthor = allAuthors.snapshotItem(i);
 thisFooter = allFooters.snapshotItem(i);
 var author = thisAuthor.innerHTML;
 if (myregexp.test(author)) {
  mymatch = myregexp.exec(author);
  thisLet.innerHTML = "<h3><b>Letter from " + mymatch + " deleted</h3></b>" +    thisFooter.innerHTML +"<hr>";
  //thisLet.innerHTML = "";
 }
}
//END CODE

A Filter for Salon Letters (Important Update below — 9/15/09) (Updated again — 11/10/09)

In view of the vitriolic and acerbic nature of the comment section of Glenn's recent postings at UT, many commenters have asked for a filter to remove certain authors' letters from the comment thread. It got so bad, that one commenter was ready to kill:

Baring that, I'd kill for a "ignore" or "filter" option. At least that way I can completely skip the crap and not waste the time and bytes downloading text I'm not going to read.
— KB4Hire

At the time, I said that I was too busy to take the necessary steps to produce such a filter, but this is the kind of simple programming task that I just can't pass up. So I brushed up my javascript and read a book on Greasemonkey and then wasted a day of my life writing a Q&D^® filter to remove letters from specified authors from comments pages. It turns out it was about as simple as I predicted. And while it doesn't save on downloading, because you have to download the letters before you check and eliminate them, it does mean that you don't have to read the vitriol and invective that some people seem to be incapable of excluding from their writing. This will be a boon to those with peptic ulcers and high blood pressure.

The file is salonletterfilter.user.js, and, if you already have the Greasemonkey add-on for Firefox installed and active, it can be installed simply by clicking on the file name and selecting "Install" when the Greasemonkey dialog panel appears. If you don't already have Greasemonkey, install it by clicking on the link. If you're using Internet Explorer, eat your heart out.

Note that there is some manual configuration necessary to make the script functional. After installing the script, open the Greasemonkey "Manage User Scripts" dialog either by right-clicking on the Greasemonkey icon in the status bar at the bottom of your browser window or from the browser's "Tools" menu. Once the dialog panel is open, select "Salon Letter Filter" and click on "Edit". This will open the script in your designated text editor. Then go to the first line of the script that is not a comment (i.e., does not begin with "//") and replace the word "authors" with your kill list. Use a comma to separate individual authors if you want to exclude more than one author. Save the file, and the next time you open a Salon letters page, letters from the authors listed in "killfile" will be deleted.

The configured version is fairly "polite" in that it leaves behind a notice that a letter from a particular author has been deleted, the permalink to the message (as an icon) and the datestamp. As a less polite option, there is also a more vicious version that removes letters completely. To implement this, edit the script and in the last line of the code (//thisLet.innerHTML = "";) delete the "//" at the beginning. Unwanted letters will disappear without a trace.

You can, of course, retrieve deleted letters by editing the "killfile" variable at any time. And there is no need to uninstall the script if you no longer wish to have a killfile. Simply set the variable "killfile" to an empty string ('') and the script will stop. The only thing to keep in mind is that the "killfile" variable is used to create a regular expression so regular expression metacharacters have to have a backslash ("\") in front of them for the script to work properly.

[Disclaimer: No warranty, expressed or implied, is associated with this script. The use of this script is entirely at the user's risk. This offer void where prohibited by law.]

UPDATE: While we were sleeping, Salon changed the format of their letters pages (obviously to make them less readable than they were before). This means that the old version of the Salon Letters Filter no longer works. I have revised the Greasemonkey script and it is still available through the link above in this posting. In order to install the new version you will have to first delete the old one. For those who are unable to access the script through the link, the text of the new script is now available.

LATER UPDATE: Salon has mercifully restored the previous letters settings. There is now no need for version 0.0.2 of the Salon Letter Filter and the original version works fine. That is all.

STILL LATER UPDATE: Salon has now changed the format of their letter pages in conformance with their new beta "business model". This change is likely to be permanent. The text of the new script for the beta layout is now available. The link to a downloadable version of the script no longer works.

The Earnestness of being Important

Twice in the current month a poster at UT has criticized Glenn's use of sentence initial "most importantly", insisting, rather pedantically, that the "correct" form is "most important":

Usage

"Importantly" means "in an important manner." Thus, the phrase "most important" should replace your frequent "most importantly."
Monday, March 9, 2009 11:00 AM

and

Usage

Glenn writes:

UPDATE II: Rather oddly, the NYT article I quoted above, by David Herzsenhorn, has been moved on the NYT site and is now at this link (see here). Most importantly, it has been re-written to reflect that fact that it was not Dodd who inserted the exception for past contracts:

"Importantly" means "in an important manner." The correct form is: "Most important, it has been rewritten..."
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 02:38 AM

However, despite the poster's certainty about the "correct" usage, the issue is not so clear-cut:

Usage note:
Both more important and more importantly occur at the beginning of a sentence in all varieties of standard English: More important (or More importantly), her record as an administrator is unmatched. Today, more importantly is the more common, even though some object to its use on the grounds that more important is an elliptical form of “What is more important” and that the adverb importantly could not occur in such a construction. More importantly probably developed by analogy with other sentence-modifying adverbs, as curiously, fortunately, and regrettably.
Based on the Random House Dictionary
Dictionary.com

Usage Note: Some critics have objected to the use of the phrase more importantly in place of more important when one introduces an assertion, as in More importantly, no one is ready to step into the vacuum left by the retiring senator. But both forms are widely used by reputable writers, and there is no obvious reason for preferring one or the other.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Dictionary.com

importantly, adv.
1. In an important manner or degree; weightily, momentously.

Now esp. common as a kind of sentence adverb preceded by more or most; in some contexts it is interchangeable with important and so has the function of a quasi-adj. Cf. IMPORTANT a. 4.

Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required)

important, a.
4. Preceded by more or most: used as a kind of sentence adjective. Cf. IMPORTANTLY adv. 1.

This construction is discussed in R. Quirk et al. Gram. Contemp. Eng. (1972) §5.26 (p. 255).

Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required)

Either the adjectival more/most important or the adverbial more/most importantly may serve as a sentence adverb; both are Standard in this use: More [Most] important [importantly], we now have the right answer.
Bartleby.com

A nice analysis of the usage was written by Evan Jenkins for the Language Corner blog of the Columbia Journalism Review, which is worth quoting extensively here:

Important/Importantly
Important ? Well, Interesting

By Evan Jenkins

Steve Parrott, associate director (later director) for university relations at the University of Iowa, e-mailed to ask, “Please consider a few words on ‘more important / more importantly.’ ”

Okay. Mr. Parrott had in mind sentences or clauses that begin with one of those phrases, like “Most importantly, the charges are tied directly to the original topic Mr. Starr was supposed to investigate.”

The short answer is that either form of the word is acceptable. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage (1994) has a lengthy and interesting (really) discussion of the longstanding argument (really) over important vs. importantly, with many citations, and concludes that “both are defensible grammatically and both are in respectable use.”

The tilt here, though, is toward “importantly.” The adverb can stand alone at the start of a sentence or clause — without “more” or “most” or any other modifier — and the adjective can’t.

Try it. Drop the “most” from the example quoted above; the sentence still works. Then, with “most” gone, drop the “ly” from “importantly”; the sentence no longer works.

(Some mindless aversion to “ly” adverbs at the start of a sentence — an extension of misguided rigidity about “importantly”? — must have been at work in the following sentence, since no human being ever spoke this way: “Not surprising, a variety of polls indicate...”)

The arguments for “most important” are strained, as an e-mail discussion with the freelance copy editor Christy Goldfinch of Fort Worth made clear.

“Important” commonly fails to modify any specific part of its sentence, so the adjective advocates contend that it can be understood to modify the whole thing — a “sentence adjective.” Well, “importantly” can certainly be called a “sentence adverb.”

But with “importantly” there’s no need for that dance. The adverb has an element to grab hold of within its sentence, the verb or the overall predicate. (And that, quite apart from any “sentence adverb” justification, makes the literalists’ objection to “hopefully” at the start of a sentence fallacious, as well as outmoded.)

Another argument for “most important” is that the phrase “What is” is understood to precede it. If that were a natural supposition, all sorts of adjectives (with modifiers) could start sentences. But “Most happy, the storm ended,” just doesn’t make it.

The “most” approach is acceptable (not preferable) with the one adjective “important” not on logical grounds but because it is widely used and well established. And in passages that start with modifiers ending in “ly” — “equally” comes to mind — using “important” is handy.

So the consensus is clear. Either more/most importantly or more/most important is acceptable, but it is fairly clear that more/most important is the interloper here. Sentence initials are frequently used as absolutes (i.e., they modify the entire sentence rather than any particular part of the sentence). Generally speaking, such absolutes are usually adverbial (in what manner, by what means). To use more/most important as a sentence initial it must be considered elliptical for (What is) more/most important (is the fact that) ....

Furthermore, 'importantly' is a synonym of 'significantly'. It is quite natural to say "More significantly, there is no other choice available" — considerably more natural than saying "More significant, there is no other choice available." Initial adverbials used as absolutes are quite common (e.g., "regrettably, curiously, surprisingly). One would never think of replacing them with an adjective:

Regrettably, his attempt failed.
*Regrettable, his attempt failed.
Curiously, no one was bothered by this.
*Curious, no one was bothered by this.
Surprisingly, the meeting was well attended.
*Surprising, the meeting was well attended.

even though doing so could be considered elliptical for (What is) regrettable/curious/surprising (is the fact that) ....

Extending this to more/most expressions completes the analogy:

Regrettably, his attempt failed. More regrettably, he died in the attempt.
*Regrettable, his attempt failed. *More regrettable, he died in the attempt.
Curiously, no one was bothered by this. More curiously, some were even pleased by it.
*Curious, no one was bothered by this. *More curious, some were even pleased by it.
Surprisingly, the meeting was well attended. More surprisingly, no one left before the end.
*Surprising, the meeting was well attended. *More surprising, no one left before the end.

Thus the elliptical "(What is) {adjective} (is the fact that)..." model is unnatural and there is no doubt that more/most importantly is the original usage and that more/most important is no more than an accepted interloper.

At last! A president whose sentences might be diagrammed....

From Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post...

Something that most people - even his political opponents - agree on is that President Barack Obama is a fairly gifted orator. On those occasions when he speaks extemporaneously, he still struggles with vocalized pauses - those lengthy "Uhhmmms" and "Errrrrs" - but in general, he can compose articulate sentences and typically does fine work with a prepared speech.

But is GRAMMAR, itself, in the tank for Obama? Apparently so, and all it takes to reveal this truth is a trip back to the most hated part of your middle school education: sentence diagramming. [At left], blogger Garth Risk Hallberg diagrammed a sentence from Obama's recent press conference - coincidentally, his response to the question put to him by our own Sam Stein:

My view is also that nobody's above the law, and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that, generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.

You can read the rest of Linkin's post here, including some of Hallberg's analysis... the rest of Hallberg's post may be found here.

a new GOP-specific form of aphasia?

The inimitable Bob Cesa, at the Huffington Post, has published a litany of examples of how the Republican Party is losing its mind, its logic, sense of syntax, etc. Of course, this should not be a surprise, given the past eight years, when their party's leader was one of the most linguistically challenged politicians within memory.

After giving dozens of examples of plain lunacy-- including a very strange Bushism that was completely new to me and I thought I'd heard them all-- Cesca concludes with the following:

They have indeed totally lost their shpadoinkle and despite purely involuntary spikes in my blood pressure, it's so much fun to watch. By successfully debunking their lies, rising above their bait and merely presenting a contrast of character, President Obama is making the Republican A-listers appear small, petty and absolutely befuddled. They're frantically struggling to figure out how to counterpunch, so they're grabbing, borrowing or downright plagiarizing ideas from anywhere, irrespective of the general quality of the idea. And if the Republicans are at all interested in continued survival, someone they respect should probably smack their hands and scold: Drop that filthy Limbaugh quote! You don't know where it's been! [emphasis is mine]

But if this is their "voice" and they're satisfied with it, I for one welcome the new Republican "voice" and wish them a hearty and very sincere: Good luck with that.