Kevin’s got the text of Assange’s speech up.

According to the White House, budget cuts have led to 300,000 education jobs cut

Clearly, these people haven’t heard about all the good things that were in the stimulus.
They should check out yesterday’s Book Salon. Forward.

Why, my stars and garters, thank you so much, allan, for reminding us about all those good things.

Thnx for that link, yellowsnapdragon.

Regarding the meaning of the word, “entitlement,” and the NPR link. . .

Not to stray too far from Fatster’s point, but this is one example of the bigger issue about the language evolving. It’s a reminder of an angry controversy which surfaced in 1961 when Webster’s Third edition dictionary was published.

Webster’s took a new descriptivist angle acknowledging that meanings of words evolve, and even slang words may become accepted if enough people understand them and use them. So the new dictionary defined meanings to include how people use words rather than limiting meaning to some static value from the past.

“. . .In the early 1960s, Webster’s Third came under attack for its “permissiveness” and its failure to tell people what proper English was. It was the opening shot in the culture wars, as conservatives detected yet another symbol of the permissiveness of society as a whole and the decline of authority, as represented by the Second Edition. As historian Herbert Morton explained, “Webster’s Second was more than respected. It was accepted as the ultimate authority on meaning and usage and its preeminence was virtually unchallenged in the United States. It did not provoke controversies, it settled them.” . . .”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary#Permissiveness

The same is happening to grammar. My hunch is within a generation or two the adverb will be abandoned as anything distinct from the adjective. Also the subjunctive will be abandoned. Both will be satisfied by the context of the sentence. I think so because they are already misused or avoided as antiques by my kids and grandkids. The schools aren’t as strict as before, which is OK by me.

Insofar as “entitlement” is concerned the NPR link warned us to be on the alert (rather than offended, I think) by how the word may be interpreted. I think that means consider applying clarification or a different word in its place whenever there’s any doubt.

Oh, do let us stray, maa8722. I don’t have access to the on-line OED and I’m too laid-back right now to go find my ancient print version, but this source traces ‘entitlement’ back to the late 14th century, when it had to do with giving a title to a chapter or a book. By the mid-15th century, however, it seems to have gone through a rapid transformation and meant “to bestow”, as giving a “person a claim to possession or privilege”.

I don’t remember when it was (and it was a looooong time ago), but I was rather offended when “ain’t” made it into the dictionary. LOL.

Many thanks for this treat, maa8722.

this is really interesting to me maa8722. Was just talking to a friend in Holland earlier today about this topic. Not on the word entitlement but about changes in language precision, and adherence to standards. She said they redefine their language every five years – they get a new shine on the old book :) and I had not considered the changes in accepted norms in dictionary editing, back in the day for us.
thanx!

fatster: thanx for all you do! I read your round-up every day that I get to the intertoobz! I know it can be so damn depressing but what you’re doing is a valuable thing!

Thnx to you, kspopulist, for your kind words–and encouragement, too.

More Simpson / Bowles is on the agenda.

Campaign to Fix the Debt

We have joined together for this campaign to call on policymakers from both sides of the aisle to determine the best way to gradually and intelligently bring our debt under control. The solutions won’t be easy – they will require some combination of cuts to low-priority spending, controls on the growth of entitlements to make them sustainably solvent, and revenue-raising tax reform. We simply cannot afford all the promises we’ve made. But if we do this right, we can make reforms in a way that protects the most vulnerable, prioritizes important investments in areas like infrastructure and education, and enhances economic growth.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79858_Page2.html#ixzz243TqXIi3

Steering Committee listed on the Campaign to Fix the Debt website consit of:

Erskine Bowles, Senator Alan Simpson, Senator Judd Gregg, Governor Ed Rendell, Governor Phil Bredesen, David Cote, Senator Sam Nunn, Michael Peterson, Steven Rattner, Ambassador Robert Zoellick, Congressman Jim McCrery

But . . . but . . . but, with a steering committee like that would could possibly go wrong, paladinknight? Many thnx for the link.

Just can’t imagine what those cuts to low-priority spending are going to be.

This one pretty much proves Dday was right:

failure to stop the foreclosure epidemic was mostly preznit’s fault.

Spew Alert: beware of this howler near the end:

And right about then, in the fall of 2010, Mr. Obama began to reconsider. The frustrated president told his advisers that what they were doing was not good enough. He told them to revisit old ideas and to find new ones.

Mr. Obama was particularly incensed by mounting evidence that mortgage companies were breaking the law in some foreclosure cases.

[italics added]

fatster, you accused Tarpley of being a LaRouchean, whereas his latest weekly proves him to be anti-John Birch Society. Where did you get your information?

The “ain’t” controversy, among others, was provoked by Webster’s Third in 1961. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary#Ain.27t

Notice the links within this link, and who was outraged by “ain’t.” The Nat’l Review, of course, but also NYT which one would expect to be more open minded. Surprises there.

Webster”s Second (the “Nazi” edition) had been published as long ago as 1841 and was left intact for 120 years. In fairness to the Second’s strictures over meanings, I think it was concerned that language, left to its own provinvial devices, would tend to fragment into dialects over time. That may have been a reasonable worry in those days before the industrial revolution, and the mobility of our times. It would have been better, though, for the Third’s efforts to proceed a bite at a time perhaps beginning much earlier than 1961 — maybe around 1910?

So the Second served a similar purpose for English that the Academie Francaise still tries to enforce (lite-wise) over the French language. I recall from sometime in the ’60s a cabal of radical Quebecois had contemplated violence there, and rejected it since it would lose them sympathizers.

I’m 65 and gather you’re about the same. . . My grandmother was born in 1872, my mother and father in 1912. They were in a purple rage over the Third when my father brought it home. I was only 14, and thought it was just a door stop. It’s worth reading the lengthy preface to each edition, Second and Third, if one has the time.

“RFK Lives,” a friend of mine who still posts on Daily Kos, recently wrote a diary in which he argued for using the phrase “earned benefit” instead of “entitlement” to describe Social Security.

Ironically, the term “entitlement” was coined to distinguish programs like SS from welfare: eligibility for SS is based on meeting certain conditions (having worked 40 quarters and reaching the eligibility age); eligibility for welfare is based on need.

Supporters of SS warn that the right wing’s strategy is to make the program more welfare-like, which would make it less popular with voters.

Todd Akin, GOP Representative from MO who is now running against Sen. Claire McCaskill has out-done even himself now, claiming he’s opposed to abortion “even in case of rape [because] victims of ‘legitimate rape’ have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.”

Is McCaskill still running behind this guy?

How timely your comment is. Last weekend, Mrs. Tiger and I went to Greenfield Village to see a War of 1812 muster. While we were there, we visited Noah Webster’s home, which Henry Ford I brought back to Dearborn. The plaque outside the home mentioned that one aim of Webster’s dictionary was to standardize American English, including the spelling of words, which was not consistent in those days.

Ed Rendell. Reason number 1,683 why the Democratic Party is decrepit.

Link.

So it was 1961. Actually, I’d thought it was a bit earlier. Thanks for your good summary and links about such controversies, maa8722. That was sort of the turning point where scholars/experts began to recognize the language and usage of the common folk.

Just for fun, I think it was Webster’s 9th that introduced this wonderful little essay for “split infinitive“, which had me in stitches at the time. How unconventional! An essay as part of the definition, and one that actually challenged the usual starchy approach.

I have Vol. I of the “Dictionary of American Regional English”, which is just fascinating and I’ve spent many enjoyable hours with it. It’s now on-line: http://dare.wisc.edu

Good find, Fractal! Great to see more documentation of that failure. Many thnx!

It is fascinating what they do with the language, tammanytiger. It seems to be part of the Overton Window tactic. The slow skid to the right has been quite the phenomenon, happening slowly and subtly, and wrecking so much as it proceeds.

Aha. I can’t take the time to track down all the info in his wiki. I know 2 things: Tarpley is virulently anti-Bircher and his GHWBush book is published by Progressive Press (amazon info), whatever that is, not by what is stated on wiki.

First example I’ve run into of wiki making accusations that may or may not be true.

Similar to what I found on LaRouche’s wiki. I.E. a lot of conflicting info. He’s right. He’s left. He’s two mints in one.

I guess the message is to ignore wikis on controversial figures, since the ‘market’ doesn’t work. The wiki market is supposed to work by allowing experts on the subject to correct earlier incorrect info.

However, if wiki subject is a person with a few friends and a few enemies, the latter are likely to be more tenacious than the former and make sure that their POV dominates the wiki.

I pay attention to what people say and how it comports with other evidence. So far I have found Tarpley to be reliable (subject to change on additional info) and interesting bc he doesn’t parrot other info or seem to take knee jerk reactions to specific cases, unlike democracynow.

Tarpley is now delving into links betw Mormons (scurrilous org) and Birchers. Claims they’re joined at the hip. Ryan is from Walker family of George H Walker Bush. Even if only half of what Tarley sez is true, it is fascinating history that I haven’t found elsewhere.

BTW, wiki on my house, from NYS register of historic buildings, is incorrect owing to info I’ve found out since NYS was involved. I can’t figure out how to correct it and am not interested in doing so anyhow. Yet another example of how wiki market does not work.

Let’s hope they’ll do another poll soon, bluewombat. Last I noticed, he was about 5 points ahead.

Backfilling state and local budgets was in the stimulus in 2009; that’s why huge cuts got delayed to 2011 and 2012. The amount in the bill as proposed was probably lowballed, and Congress passed even less, but it was there and it did delay some layoffs. The onus here is on state and local governments that will not reinstate taxes on business and the rich that they have eliminated over the past 30 years. And that is especially the result of downticket fallout from the election of 2010–lots of state legislatures became dominated by Republicans and from the election of Democrats like Rahm Emmanuel as mayors of cities that have their own school systems. And then there’s Bloomberg.

Interesting article about “entitlements.” Words matter – these creeps spend millions of dollars crafting this BS. Everything is presented as a foregone conclusion: “Everyone knows…”

Methinks the current deliberate abuse of the word “entitlements” perfectly captures our new gilded age: folks in need are being portrayed as the greedy ones.

Equally amazing is the utter failure of Democratic Party strategists to counter the right’s misuse of language (doesn’t anyone read Orwell anymore?), let alone their failure to develop counter-narratives.

I’m reasonably certain that FDL posters could do a far better job of wordsmithing than the “professionals” hired by the national party, and at far less cost.

Ah, yes, tongorad–the victims are always to blame, it seems. Sigh.

Agreed, tammanytiger. What do you think is the source/cause of the Dem’s inability to counter so many, many instance of such misuse?

Thanks for those comments, TarheelDem. Very interesting.

Degenerate cultural imperialism.

See David’s new post.

Good question. I’d start with the party mandarins’ support of some of what the right wing is doing, especially an “all war, all the time” foreign policy, expansion of the security/surveillance apparatus, and protecting the wealthy and powerful. Right behind that is their inability to figure out their enemy’s goals and tactics (i.e., wipe the Democrats off the political chessboard, do so by any means possible). They’re also incredibly resistant to innovation, making it easy for the likes of Frank Luntz to coin new phrases and pound them over the head with them.

Aside from that, the Democrats are doing a great job of protecting our interests.

This is different from the benign mutation and evolution of language we were discussing earlier, and which riles people for silly reasons to this day.

Instead what’s coming from the right nowadays is a malevolent effort to co-opt language and turn it into chattel. I think it relies on the ease of communicating quickly during our hurried lives. So, the fewer the syllables, the better, for luring underinformed people toward an incendiary goal. We are at risk in large part due to the conveniences we enjoy now.

Good points, tammanytiger. At this juncture I tend to put quite a bit of emphasis on your first point.

Absolutely, maa8722. “Malevolent co-opting”–good summation. Thnx.

Ya beat me to it, allan! You’re so swift.