Translations

Technorati Tags: Translations,Religion,Context

“Tolstoy wrote…” is an opening phrase you might hear a few times in your life. As soon as you do, Dear Gentle Reader, you might pause in your listening to think, “Really?  Are you certain.”

Here are a couple of quotes from a French workbook:

“Elle a pris une decision.” (Sorry, you’ll have to imagine the accent over the e in decision.) The workbook then translates that sentence into 1) She made a decision; 2) She has made a decision; and 3) She did make a decision.

“Elle faisait..” can mean “She was doing…”, “She used to do…”, or “She did…”

Context matters; and context is a word which encompasses quite a lot, including, but not limited to the mores of the times—both of the time of the original writing and the time of the translation.

Much thought and subjective decision-making go into translations. So much so that we should be careful about placing too much confidence in what a translator finally presents.

And the more important the translated material might be to our individual and collective lives, the more cautious we should be.

For instance, religious writings should be treated with much caution. (Surely you saw that coming.)

Trust, but verify; or, in this case, read it in the original before you accept it totally.

Good luck with that.

Sphere: Related Content

Sap, indeed

Technorati Tags: New York Times,David Brooks,President Obama,Republicans

David Brooks, over at The New York Times, has unloaded on President Obama.

Brooks claims to have been “a sap” for believing just about anything Mr. Obama has said over the past 2 1/2 years because of the specifics in the President’s new plan to cut some taxes and raise some others.

But Mr. Brooks’ sappiness really becomes obvious when, towards the end of his column he writes: “at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think.”

Oh, Dave, Dave, Dave.

If you believe Republicans respect the average American, you’re such a sap.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

2nd step in reading

Technorati Tags: Doonesbury,Censorship,Palin,Reading,JoeMcGinnis

The current brouhaha regarding the Doonesbury comic strip is a good example of distraction as a metaphor for sleight of hand.

The strip is being censored in a few newspapers for its political content. At least that’s alleged reason.

If you look at the strips in question, though, it’s easy to see that Gary Trudeau isn’t being critical of Sarah Palin so much as he’s taking some shots at Fox News and the sort of newspapery being touted as journalism by right wing news outlets.

The panels quote from Joe McGinnis’s new book, to be sure, but the punch lines are aimed directly at the journalist who’s reading the book and then spinning the quoted material in absurd terms. He is the object of ridicule, not the former 1/2 governor (see the distraction?).

The sleight of hand comes in when the censoring newspapers allege it’s the political content which merits the removal of the strip, but actually those newspapers don’t want the public to think about what the comic journalist is doing. That might call too much attention to what the papers, themselves, are doing in reporting the political news.

It’s time for the English teachers of the world to point out to their students that calling words is only the first step in reading. The second step is thinking about the content of those words.

If there were more thought in the reading process, we’d’ve learned long ago that individual politicians are transitory, but institutions are more permanent. And there’s more danger to a flawed journalism institution than there is in a single pol.

Trust, but verify. 

 

Sphere: Related Content

SCOTUS and the First

Technorati Tags: SCOTUS,Phelps,Freedom of Religion,Freedom of Speech

Here’s the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here’re some quotes from Snyder v Phelps:

Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” Connick, supra, at 146, or when it “is a subject of legitimate news 7 Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011) Opinion of the Court interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public,”

The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” Dun & Bradstreet, supra, at 759. The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,”“Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.” App.3781–3787. While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the UnitedStates and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet, to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.

And here’s my problem with the Supreme Court’s decision in reversing the judgment against Phelps and his Westboro Baptist church:  Content of those signs.  Since Phelps and his family base their protests entirely on passages from the Christian Bible, haven’t the Supreme Court 8 given a nudge to establishing the Judeo-Christian religion as the official religion of the United States; or at least given substance to using a biblical citation as justification in a court case?

How, for instance, can the current cases involving same-sex marriages prevail against the religious onslaught found in every one of the arguments against such marriages in light of this decision? It certainly seems as though by giving carte blanche to Phelps and his congregation and including the biblical interpretations as protected speech the Court has done damage to the establishment clause, if not to the free exercise clause.

Where does Phelps’ free exercise end and my freedom of association and inherent right to privacy begin?

Sphere: Related Content

What’s the difference?

Technorati Tags: Religionists,Extremism,Knights of Columbus,Opus Dei,Muslim Brotherhood,Masons

What’s the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Knights of Columbus?

Between Opus Dei and the Masons and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Which organization really is a threat to our way of life?

Just askin’.

Sphere: Related Content

Right Wing Interpretation

Technorati Tags: Egypt,The Daily Dish,Drudge Report,Right Wing,Propaganda,Truth

If you ever needed an example, Dear Gentle Reader(s), of the disingenuousness of far-right propagandists, seek no further.  Thanks to The Daily Dish, we get this from The Drudge Report:

“Military coup?”  Not a “People’s coup?”

No credit the the men and women and children in the streets?

Shame.

Trust, but verify.  (And you really need to verify the Drudge Report!)

Sphere: Related Content

Best phrasing of the day…

Technorati Tags: New York Times,Bob Herbert,Gun violence,Language,Politics,Political commentary

Here’s the opening para of Bob Herbert’s piece in today’s New York Times:

By all means, condemn the hateful rhetoric that has poured so much poison into our political discourse. The crazies don’t kill in a vacuum, and the vilest of our political leaders and commentators deserve to be called to account for their demagoguery and the danger that comes with it.

Here’s a nominee for best phrasing:  “The crazies don’t kill in a vacuum.”

There are a lot of commentaries holding that the rhetoric of the right wing cannot be proven to have been related to the shooting in Tucson last Saturday.  See, for instance, David Brooks in the same issue of the Times.

Point taken…if you’re looking for specific, direct-line relativity.

Herbert, though, takes the argument; there is no social vacuum in today’s world.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Gaydar Humming…mmmmmmmmmmmmm

Technorati Tags: Owen Honors,Culture Wars,VirginianPilot

Um, Dear Gentle Reader(s), this teapot tempest about the Navy officer and his politically-incorrect videos is indicative of not very much, isn’t it?

It’s astonishing to watch one of them as presented by the website of the Virginian Pilot*, but only in the sense of “Huh?”

Even a few years back, when these videos were made, we had evidence of the omnipresence of private information available through the internet.  How could Honors have not known these vids would come back to, er, bite him on the ass?

Besides, I’m not nearly so offended by fag and faggot.  Black men call each other nigger all the time—at least they do on certain tv shows and in certain movies.  Why should I be offended when a man, who most certainly has a strong marriage and enough offspring to crew a small boat, sets my gaydar off?

Let him keep his command, I say.  He’ll do more good than harm after this exposure.

Trust, but verify.

*Thanks to the paper for posting three videos.

Sphere: Related Content

Frustration

Technorati Tags: Bush Administration,Obama Administration,Republican Party,Torture,Don't Ask,Don't Tell,Senator Reid

How’s this, Dear Gentle Reader(s), for frustration:  the U.S. Senate is on track to fail to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the 111th Congress.

What has the lip service of the President done to prevent this?  Not much.

It would be nice if Senator Reid would give something other than a sleep-inducing speech about Republican intransigence.  It would also be nice if chocolate covered cherries grew on trees. 

No single-payer health plan.  No movement towards more favorable policies for the middle class. 

Surviving the 8 years of G.W. (Bring on the torturers!) Bush’s administration wasn’t pleasant.  It was probably a good exercise for 10 years of Republican obsequiousness to the super wealthy (Obama’s last two and Romney’s eight) which are about to descend upon us.

22 months of frustration.

Sigh.

Sphere: Related Content

A quick question

Technorati Tags: Elections,Money,Politics,Corporate Accountability

It’ll never catch on, Dear, Gentle Reader(s), but what do you think would be the result if, at every Congressional committee hearing which allowed, or requested, non-Federal government testimony, to have the very first question for each testifier be, “How much money, and to whom, have you contributed to a Federal election campaign, either at the general election level or the primary election level, in the past five years?”

That would be one way to keep track of monies expended in political campaigns, as well as to whom it was directed.

Cui bono—who benefits?  Until we know that, we don’t know enough.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

DWF (Driving while floating)

Technorati Tags: Drug War,Gainesville FL,Driving,ColumbiaTN

Perhaps it’s different for others, but from my personal experience, driving home after  a couple of tokes at a friend’s house some 35 years ago was a slow-motion experience.  I found myself stopping for stop signs in the middle of the block, and deciding to move forward after much deliberation of the pros and coms with myself.

And I know it was slow-motion because it took me 20 minutes to make the 5 minute drive—there’s almost no place in Gainesville, Florida (Go Gators!), that’s more than 5 minutes away from any place else.  (Of course, I haven’t been back in 35 years.)

When I taught speech to police and sheriff officers in Columbia, Tennessee, they would often joke about the local “hippies” who were blocking traffic on local roads with their road scorching speeds of 25 miles per hour.

When people show you a picture of a smashed-up car and speak of the dangers of driving under the influence of weed, look askance.  That car could well have been hit by an alcoholic-influenced driver—which trumps a marijuana-influenced driver.

Cui Bono--Follow the money, Dear, Gentle Reader(s), it will tell you who will benefit with the continued “drug wars.”

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Reading Comprehension Test

Technorati Tags: Justice Kennedy,New York Times,Politico,Citizens United,Republican Party,Democratic Party

Wow!  Here’s a headline from The New York Times: Democrats Retain Edge in Spending on Campaigns; and this one is from the website Politico: Dems getting outspent? Not so fast.

So, the Democrats are outspending the Republicans?  Isn’t that counter-intuitive to what we’re hearing about all those millions being spent on negative ads against Democratic candidates?

Well, yes and no.

The stories go on to say that the Democratic Party has more money than the Republican Party. 

Really, though, what would be the point of the Republicans trying to gather money when there are others, secret others, doing the work for them?

And why would anyone who wants to keep their wealth bother to contribute large sums to “regulated” political fund raisers when they can get a possibly bigger bang for their buck by giving without having to admit publicly their largesse?

There can be little comfort for Democratic candidates with the headlines this morning.

Ah, Mr. Justice Kennedy.  What have you wrought?  (And how long will it be before you admit your error in judgment?)

So, what have we learned today, Dear Gentle Reader(s)?  Read beyond headlines; sometimes they don’t accurately reflect the whole story.

Trust, but verify.

p.s. Gold Star to those who can spot the spelling error at the Politico website!

Sphere: Related Content

Words have meaning…Continued

Technorati Tags: Andrew Sullivan,Juan Williams,Bill O'Reilly,NPR,Muslim,Religion,Bigotry

And the Juan Williams confab continues.

In a post today, Andrew Sullivan writes…”He said it was legitimate to feel fear when someone in Muslim garb is on a plane.” 

Not quite.  Williams said, “…when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Now, DGR(s), is fear, which Sullivan used, equal to worried or to nervous?

If Williams had refused to get on the plane with those dressed “in Muslim garb,” then it could be argued that the two words he used are, indeed, equivalent; but he doesn’t indicate in the interview with O’Reilly that he canceled his trip.  The presumption must be that he rode along with those in the “garb,” albeit a touch fidgety.

So, how about Sullivan’s position?  Was Williams really legitimizing fear of Muslims?

One would be hard pressed to think so.

It’s easy to be nervous around anyone who sports religious symbolism in their garb or accessories.  I’m nervous around guys walking around with crosses in their lapels, but I don’t fear them.  I certainly am more aware of what they do when they’re near.

Their presence is always a good time to

Trust, but verify.

(I stand by my support of NPR; their decision was based on their standards about differentiating between reporters and commenters.)

Sphere: Related Content

Um…Say what? (Or, do words have meaning?)

Technorati Tags: NPR,Juan Williams,Michelle Malkin,Townhall.com

Dear, Sweet Juan Williams has found a new permanent home, and good luck to him.

His firing from NPR, and subsequent commentary about that firing, however, raises an old question: do words have meaning?

For instance, when Williams worked for NPR, as little as three days ago, he was a “reporter.”  Now, Michelle Malkin, in a column published in Townhall.com, begins with “commentator Juan Williams.”

And that, Dear Gentle Reader,* is the problem.

In NPR’s eyes, Williams’ “I get nervous” moved him into the category of commentator and out of the category of reporter.

Reporters need to be as objective as possible so that those of us relying on them have the sense that facts are being offered for our edification and consideration.

Otherwise we have entertainment, but not material with which we can make informed decisions.

Listening to some clips of Williams on O’Reilly’s show last night (Sorry, no citation available at this time), one might think Williams was ready for the change in title.

NPR had good reason to let Mr. Williams move on to more lucrative pastures (a lot more money is made bloviating than reporting…alas).

Ladies and Gentlemen, we present the erstwhile reporter, Juan Williams.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Nervous?

Technorati Tags: Nervousness,Civil Rights,Race,Religion,Culture Wars

The current brouhaha about Juan Williams’ nervousness in an airport is generating a little heat. 

While we bruit about various rationales supporting or decrying the fact that Williams lost his NPR job, how about if we take a longer view?

Do you suppose the average Iraqi or Afghani, walking down the street is or is not nervous these days?  Talk about nervousness!

Frankly, I think three or four skinheads are scary…three or four black guys with “dreads” are scary…biker girls are scary.

It’s a scary world out there.

Trust, but verify.  And keep a sharp eye out.

Sphere: Related Content

Buckley v Vidal: The last word?

Of course, Dear Gentle Reader(s), it was to be expected that Gore Vidal would eventually find a conduit for his own "obituary" of William F Buckley, Jr., and it is via Truthdig, an award-winning blog edited by Robert Scheer. It's an amusing column, as are nearly all of Vidal's efforts.

Admired quote: Buckley was a world-class American liar on the far right who would tell any lie he thought he could get away with. Years of ass-kissing famous people in the press and elsewhere had given him, he felt, a sort of license to libelously slander those hated liberals who, from time to time, smoked him out as I did in Chicago, when I defended the young people in Grant Park by denying that they were Nazis and that the only “pro- or crypto-Nazi” I could think of was himself.

How could one, DGR(s), not admire such audacity? It is to be hoped that someone will send Andrew Sullivan, an admirer of Buckley's who should know better, a link to this post.

Buckley admirers, trust, but verify.
"Andrew Sullivan"
Buckley
Gore Vidal
Andrew Sullivan

Sphere: Related Content

Bill and Andrew; Babe and Truman

Did Andrew Sullivan miss an idea or two about WF Buckley's attitudes towards gays, and, thus, WFB's basic attitude about Andrew, specifically?

Already, Dear Gentle Reader(s), we have explored a specific instance, available in Andrew's own blog, wherein Buckley dismissed the possibility of equality between a non-gay marriage and a gay marriage--Buckley's position is more general, but the marriage issue is within the "penumbra."

Just a little bit of Googling "William F. Buckley Anti-Semite?" leads to a very interesting web site for CampusProgress.org in which one Tim Fernholz reminds us of the writings of Buckley in which Buckley flirted with anti-semitism ("[Buckley] found that conservative politician Pat Buchanan had said “things about Jews” that were anti-Semitic, but excused it as “[t]he iconoclastic daemon having a night out on the town.”); racism (“The central question… is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes…. National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct…” In other words National Review opposed civil rights legislation. Buckley later characterized that stance regretfully, saying, “I think that the impact of that bill should have been welcomed by us.” [Remember that the Republican Party made good use of racial politics in its rise to prominence in the South.]); and homophobia ([Buckley, in the late 1960s] “the man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction [i.e., homosexuality], and in his art the desirability of it, is not to be confused with the man who bears his sorrow quietly. The addict is to be pitied and even respected, not the pusher.”)

Sullivan has been quick to point out that Buckley did manage to change his mind on some important issues "So the most influential conservative of his generation endorsed both the Vietnam and the 2003 Iraq wars, and came to regret doing both." Nowhere, however, does Sullivan indicate that Buckley ever changed his mind about Sullivan's sexual orientation, or his recent marriage in Massachusetts.

Buckley is often described as "patrician." Doubtless he was that; he certainly behaved with the sense of entitlement which inflicts so many who are conscious of their upper class status.

One is mindful of the relationship between the Babe Paley crowd and Truman Capote. As long as he was a metaphorical lap dog, entertaining, and non-threatening, Tru was invited. When he showed the first sign of independence, he was no longer tolerated.

Buckley never gave indication, so far as his current references show, that gays were little more than his own metaphorical lap dogs. He nurtured those whom he found in his company; but then, he never admitted his error about their lives being mere addictions or they, themselves, being pushers.

Surely Sullivan doesn't think his core being makes him an addict, or that his well argued positions on equality for non-gays and gays alike make him a pusher, and Sullivan in no way ever writes about his core "sorrow."

Sullivan is a hero, albeit flawed, to this blog; Sullivan's own hero is far more flawed. Would he could see it.

Trust, Andrew, and mourn, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

R.I.P. WFB, Jr.--Obit anus abit onus

William F. Buckley, Jr., died this week, Dear Gentle Reader(s). Almost as distressing as his political views, are some of the encomia which have been heaped on his memory, exemplified, alas, by my hero, Andrew Sullivan.

Sullivan gave space several times over the past week to moments of reflection about Buckley. The one which is most disturbing appeared on February 28, under the title "Buckley and the Gays."

Here are some quotes Sullivan attributes to Buckley, presented in a letter written by Buckley to a colleague who had just come out to him: "I honor your decision to raise publicly the points you raise ... but you too must realize what are the implications of what you ask. Namely, that the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which is aligned with, no less, one way of life, become indifferent to another way of life ...National Review will not be scarred by thoughtless gay bashing, let alone be animated by such practices ... You are absolutely correct in saying that gays should be welcome as partners in efforts to mint sound public policies; not correct, in my judgement, in concluding that such a partnership presupposes the repeal of convictions that are more, much more, than mere accretions of bigotry. You remain, always, my dear friend, and my brother in combat."

Just what ill would befall a particular (Judaeo-Christian) way of life by its indifference is not limned. Nor is it exactly clear what Buckley meant by "much much more than mere accretions of bigotry." What could be so important to convictions of any sort than ridding it of convictions of bigotry?

Sullivan begins this posting with He was much too civilized to have been personally hostile or rude; and ends it with absent Buckley's grace and manners.

In the middle, he reminds us, and himself, that "gayness would bar [a person] from full inclusion as an equal in the conservative movement."

Buckley had grace and manners? Of the sort which is imperious, perhaps. Rather like the attitude celebrated by Rogers and Hammerstein in The King and I: "Don't let us up off our knees, your Majesty/ Give us a kick, if you please, your Majesty/ Give us a kick, if you would, your Majesty/ Oooph! Oh, that was good, your Majesty!"

The man scorned Sullivan's core being--with grace and manners, to be sure.

Schopenhauer's little quip seldom had more meaning than in the case of Mr. Buckley.

R.I.P. William F. Buckley, Junior.

Sphere: Related Content

Really, Dave?

My old pal at The New York Times, David Brooks, has an interesting column today (sorry, folks, it's a Times Select--ain't free) in which he writes "Children do better when raised in stable two-parent families."

Now, on the face of it, you might agree with the statement. It sounds plausible. On second thought, though, and in the light of our experience over the past 40 years (since the '60s--the beginning of vast social changes), you might wonder--"Really?"

I wish Dave had cited a source for the statement, but he didn't. To give him credit, he did write later on that a government program could offer "Nurse practitioners who make home visits can stabilize disorganized, single-parent families." That sounds, also, plausible.

Isn't there another problem, though? Doesn't the tenor of the two statements assume a certitude about single-parent families? Doesn't that certainty assert all single-parent families are unstable and disorganized?

Again, Dave, you needed to provide a source for this assertion. Otherwise, your entire column is called into question; and I don't want that. I liked it--we do need to educate more thoroughly than we have been lately. Our economic viability demands a better educated work force.

Sorry, Dave. I have to fall back on Trust, but Verify. Cite sources.

Sphere: Related Content

"A Cancer on the Presidency"

John Dean's famous warning to President Nixon made the connection between the insidious growth of cancer and the corruption of the Nixon administration in the 1970's.

Logo is broadcasting Paragraph 175 this week. It's part of their "evolution in visible" series. Paragraph 175 illustrates the insidious growth of anti-gay attitudes in Nazi Germany in the 1930's.

Watching the film in 2007 gives one an eerie feeling of deja vu. Are we losing, incrementally, our freedoms today?

People who trust implicitly in the government should watch this film. It graphically demonstrates the truth of "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Paragraph 175, released in 2002, interviews survivors of Nazi Germany's campaign against homosexuals in the 1930's. Several male survivors of prisons and concentration camps told their stories. The one lesbian in the film managed to escape to England; she was the only surviving member of her Jewish family.

A theme throughout the movie is the repetition of how quickly the Nazis managed to squelch the budding gay life in Berlin and destroy the research done by Magnus Hirsch's group.

And each of these people saw signs of the approaching disaster but paid little attention to them. And their non-gay friends quickly became indifferent to their suffering.

"It can't happen here."

It could. Verify the truthfulness of government leaders. Is the administration fostering our common weal or one it deems in its own best interest?

Paragraph 175
Culture Wars
Civil Rights

Sphere: Related Content