Posted on Leave a comment

Remarks by the President to Parliament in London, United Kingdom | The White House

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
May 25, 2011

 

Remarks by the President to Parliament in London, United Kingdom

Westminster Hall, London, United Kingdom

3:47 P.M. BST

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 

     My Lord Chancellor, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, my lords, and members of the House of Commons:

     I have known few greater honors than the opportunity to address the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster Hall.  I am told that the last three speakers here have been the Pope, Her Majesty the Queen, and Nelson Mandela — which is either a very high bar or the beginning of a very funny joke.  (Laughter.)   

     I come here today to reaffirm one of the oldest, one of the strongest alliances the world has ever known.  It’s long been said that the United States and the United Kingdom share a special relationship.  And since we also share an especially active press corps, that relationship is often analyzed and overanalyzed for the slightest hint of stress or strain. 

     Of course, all relationships have their ups and downs.  Admittedly, ours got off on the wrong foot with a small scrape about tea and taxes.  (Laughter.)  There may also have been some hurt feelings when the White House was set on fire during the War of 1812.  (Laughter.)  But fortunately, it’s been smooth sailing ever since.

     The reason for this close friendship doesn’t just have to do with our shared history, our shared heritage; our ties of language and culture; or even the strong partnership between our governments.  Our relationship is special because of the values and beliefs that have united our people through the ages. 

     Centuries ago, when kings, emperors, and warlords reigned over much of the world, it was the English who first spelled out the rights and liberties of man in the Magna Carta.  It was here, in this very hall, where the rule of law first developed, courts were established, disputes were settled, and citizens came to petition their leaders. 

     Over time, the people of this nation waged a long and sometimes bloody struggle to expand and secure their freedom from the crown.  Propelled by the ideals of the Enlightenment, they would ultimately forge an English Bill of Rights, and invest the power to govern in an elected parliament that’s gathered here today. 

     What began on this island would inspire millions throughout the continent of Europe and across the world.  But perhaps no one drew greater inspiration from these notions of freedom than your rabble-rousing colonists on the other side of the Atlantic.  As Winston Churchill said, the “…Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”  

     For both of our nations, living up to the ideals enshrined in these founding documents has sometimes been difficult, has always been a work in progress.  The path has never been perfect. But through the struggles of slaves and immigrants, women and ethnic minorities, former colonies and persecuted religions, we have learned better than most that the longing for freedom and human dignity is not English or American or Western –- it is universal, and it beats in every heart.  Perhaps that’s why there are few nations that stand firmer, speak louder, and fight harder to defend democratic values around the world than the United States and the United Kingdom.    

     We are the allies who landed at Omaha and Gold, who sacrificed side by side to free a continent from the march of tyranny, and help prosperity flourish from the ruins of war.  And with the founding of NATO –- a British idea –- we joined a transatlantic alliance that has ensured our security for over half a century. 

     Together with our allies, we forged a lasting peace from a cold war.  When the Iron Curtain lifted, we expanded our alliance to include the nations of Central and Eastern Europe, and built new bridges to Russia and the former states of the Soviet Union. And when there was strife in the Balkans, we worked together to keep the peace.

     Today, after a difficult decade that began with war and ended in recession, our nations have arrived at a pivotal moment once more.  A global economy that once stood on the brink of depression is now stable and recovering.  After years of conflict, the United States has removed 100,000 troops from Iraq, the United Kingdom has removed its forces, and our combat mission there has ended.  In Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum and will soon begin a transition to Afghan lead.  And nearly 10 years after 9/11, we have disrupted terrorist networks and dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader –- Osama bin Laden.    

     Together, we have met great challenges.  But as we enter this new chapter in our shared history, profound challenges stretch before us.  In a world where the prosperity of all nations is now inextricably linked, a new era of cooperation is required to ensure the growth and stability of the global economy.  As new threats spread across borders and oceans, we must dismantle terrorist networks and stop the spread of nuclear weapons, confront climate change and combat famine and disease.  And as a revolution races through the streets of the Middle East and North Africa, the entire world has a stake in the aspirations of a generation that longs to determine its own destiny. 

     These challenges come at a time when the international order has already been reshaped for a new century.  Countries like China, India, and Brazil are growing by leaps and bounds.  We should welcome this development, for it has lifted hundreds of millions from poverty around the globe, and created new markets and opportunities for our own nations.

     And yet, as this rapid change has taken place, it’s become fashionable in some quarters to question whether the rise of these nations will accompany the decline of American and European influence around the world.  Perhaps, the argument goes, these nations represent the future, and the time for our leadership has passed. 

     That argument is wrong.  The time for our leadership is now. It was the United States and the United Kingdom and our democratic allies that shaped a world in which new nations could emerge and individuals could thrive.  And even as more nations take on the responsibilities of global leadership, our alliance will remain indispensable to the goal of a century that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more just.

     At a time when threats and challenges require nations to work in concert with one another, we remain the greatest catalysts for global action.  In an era defined by the rapid flow of commerce and information, it is our free market tradition, our openness, fortified by our commitment to basic security for our citizens, that offers the best chance of prosperity that is both strong and shared.  As millions are still denied their basic human rights because of who they are, or what they believe, or the kind of government that they live under, we are the nations most willing to stand up for the values of tolerance and self-determination that lead to peace and dignity. 

     Now, this doesn’t mean we can afford to stand still.  The nature of our leadership will need to change with the times.  As I said the first time I came to London as President, for the G20 summit, the days are gone when Roosevelt and Churchill could sit in a room and solve the world’s problems over a glass of brandy  -– although I’m sure that Prime Minister Cameron would agree that some days we could both use a stiff drink.  (Laughter.)  In this century, our joint leadership will require building new partnerships, adapting to new circumstances, and remaking ourselves to meet the demands of a new era. 

     That begins with our economic leadership. 

     Adam Smith’s central insight remains true today:  There is no greater generator of wealth and innovation than a system of free enterprise that unleashes the full potential of individual men and women.  That’s what led to the Industrial Revolution that began in the factories of Manchester.  That is what led to the dawn of the Information Age that arose from the office parks of Silicon Valley.  That’s why countries like China, India and Brazil are growing so rapidly — because in fits and starts, they are moving toward market-based principles that the United States and the United Kingdom have always embraced. 

     In other words, we live in a global economy that is largely of our own making.  And today, the competition for the best jobs and industries favors countries that are free-thinking and forward-looking; countries with the most creative and innovative and entrepreneurial citizens. 

     That gives nations like the United States and the United Kingdom an inherent advantage.  For from Newton and Darwin to Edison and Einstein, from Alan Turing to Steve Jobs, we have led the world in our commitment to science and cutting-edge research, the discovery of new medicines and technologies.  We educate our citizens and train our workers in the best colleges and universities on Earth.  But to maintain this advantage in a world that’s more competitive than ever, we will have to redouble our investments in science and engineering, and renew our national commitments to educating our workforces. 

     We’ve also been reminded in the last few years that markets can sometimes fail.  In the last century, both our nations put in place regulatory frameworks to deal with such market failures — safeguards to protect the banking system after the Great Depression, for example; regulations that were established to prevent the pollution of our air and water during the 1970s. 

     But in today’s economy, such threats of market failure can no longer be contained within the borders of any one country.  Market failures can go global, and go viral, and demand international responses. 

     A financial crisis that began on Wall Street infected nearly every continent, which is why we must keep working through forums like the G20 to put in place global rules of the road to prevent future excesses and abuse.  No country can hide from the dangers of carbon pollution, which is why we must build on what was achieved at Copenhagen and Cancun to leave our children a planet that is safer and cleaner. 

     Moreover, even when the free market works as it should, both our countries recognize that no matter how responsibly we live in our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us.  And so part of our common tradition has expressed itself in a conviction that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security -– health care if you get sick, unemployment insurance if you lose your job, a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work.  That commitment to our citizens has also been the reason for our leadership in the world. 

     And now, having come through a terrible recession, our challenge is to meet these obligations while ensuring that we’re not consuming — and hence consumed with — a level of debt that could sap the strength and vitality of our economies.  And that will require difficult choices and it will require different paths for both of our countries.  But we have faced such challenges before, and have always been able to balance the need for fiscal responsibility with the responsibilities we have to one another. 

     And I believe we can do this again.  As we do, the successes and failures of our own past can serve as an example for emerging economies -– that it’s possible to grow without polluting; that lasting prosperity comes not from what a nation consumes, but from what it produces, and from the investments it makes in its people and its infrastructure. 

     And just as we must lead on behalf of the prosperity of our citizens, so we must safeguard their security.  Our two nations know what it is to confront evil in the world.  Hitler’s armies would not have stopped their killing had we not fought them on the beaches and on the landing grounds, in the fields and on the streets.  We must never forget that there was nothing inevitable about our victory in that terrible war.  It was won through the courage and character of our people.

     Precisely because we are willing to bear its burden, we know well the cost of war.  And that is why we built an alliance that was strong enough to defend this continent while deterring our enemies.  At its core, NATO is rooted in the simple concept of Article Five:  that no NATO nation will have to fend on its own; that allies will stand by one another, always.  And for six decades, NATO has been the most successful alliance in human history.

     Today, we confront a different enemy.  Terrorists have taken the lives of our citizens in New York and in London.  And while al Qaeda seeks a religious war with the West, we must remember that they have killed thousands of Muslims -– men, women and children -– around the globe.  Our nations are not and will never be at war with Islam.  Our fight is focused on defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies.  In that effort, we will not relent, as Osama bin Laden and his followers have learned.  And as we fight an enemy that respects no law of war, we will continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard -– by living up to the values, the rule of law and due process that we so ardently defend.

     For almost a decade, Afghanistan has been a central front of these efforts.  Throughout those years, you, the British people, have been a stalwart ally, along with so many others who fight by our side. 

     Together, let us pay tribute to all of our men and women who have served and sacrificed over the last several years -– for they are part of an unbroken line of heroes who have borne the heaviest burden for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Because of them, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum.  Because of them, we have built the capacity of Afghan security forces.  And because of them, we are now preparing to turn a corner in Afghanistan by transitioning to Afghan lead.  And during this transition, we will pursue a lasting peace with those who break free of al Qaeda and respect the Afghan constitution and lay down arms.  And we will ensure that Afghanistan is never a safe haven for terror, but is instead a country that is strong, sovereign, and able to stand on its own two feet.

     Indeed, our efforts in this young century have led us to a new concept for NATO that will give us the capabilities needed to meet new threats — threats like terrorism and piracy, cyber attacks and ballistic missiles.  But a revitalized NATO will continue to hew to that original vision of its founders, allowing us to rally collective action for the defense of our people, while building upon the broader belief of Roosevelt and Churchill that all nations have both rights and responsibilities, and all nations share a common interest in an international architecture that maintains the peace.

     We also share a common interest in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.  Across the globe, nations are locking down nuclear materials so they never fall into the wrong hands — because of our leadership.  From North Korea to Iran, we’ve sent a message that those who flaunt their obligations will face consequences -– which is why America and the European Union just recently strengthened our sanctions on Iran, in large part because of the leadership of the United Kingdom and the United States.  And while we hold others to account, we will meet our own obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and strive for a world without nuclear weapons.

     We share a common interest in resolving conflicts that prolong human suffering and threaten to tear whole regions asunder.  In Sudan, after years of war and thousands of deaths, we call on both North and South to pull back from the brink of violence and choose the path of peace.  And in the Middle East, we stand united in our support for a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine.

     And we share a common interest in development that advances dignity and security.  To succeed, we must cast aside the impulse to look at impoverished parts of the globe as a place for charity.  Instead, we should empower the same forces that have allowed our own people to thrive:  We should help the hungry to feed themselves, the doctors who care for the sick.  We should support countries that confront corruption, and allow their people to innovate.  And we should advance the truth that nations prosper when they allow women and girls to reach their full potential.

     We do these things because we believe not simply in the rights of nations; we believe in the rights of citizens.  That is the beacon that guided us through our fight against fascism and our twilight struggle against communism.  And today, that idea is being put to the test in the Middle East and North Africa.  In country after country, people are mobilizing to free themselves from the grip of an iron fist.  And while these movements for change are just six months old, we have seen them play out before -– from Eastern Europe to the Americas, from South Africa to Southeast Asia.

     History tells us that democracy is not easy.  It will be years before these revolutions reach their conclusion, and there will be difficult days along the way.  Power rarely gives up without a fight -– particularly in places where there are divisions of tribe and divisions of sect.  We also know that populism can take dangerous turns -– from the extremism of those who would use democracy to deny minority rights, to the nationalism that left so many scars on this continent in the 20th century.

     But make no mistake:  What we saw, what we are seeing in Tehran, in Tunis, in Tahrir Square, is a longing for the same freedoms that we take for granted here at home.  It was a rejection of the notion that people in certain parts of the world don’t want to be free, or need to have democracy imposed upon them.  It was a rebuke to the worldview of al Qaeda, which smothers the rights of individuals, and would thereby subject them to perpetual poverty and violence. 

     Let there be no doubt:  The United States and United Kingdom stand squarely on the side of those who long to be free.  And now, we must show that we will back up those words with deeds.  That means investing in the future of those nations that transition to democracy, starting with Tunisia and Egypt -– by deepening ties of trade and commerce; by helping them demonstrate that freedom brings prosperity.  And that means standing up for universal rights -– by sanctioning those who pursue repression, strengthening civil society, supporting the rights of minorities. 
     We do this knowing that the West must overcome suspicion and mistrust among many in the Middle East and North Africa -– a mistrust that is rooted in a difficult past.  For years, we’ve faced charges of hypocrisy from those who do not enjoy the freedoms that they hear us espouse.  And so to them, we must squarely acknowledge that, yes, we have enduring interests in the region -– to fight terror, sometimes with partners who may not be perfect; to protect against disruptions of the world’s energy supply.  But we must also insist that we reject as false the choice between our interests and our ideals; between stability and democracy.  For our idealism is rooted in the realities of history -– that repression offers only the false promise of stability, that societies are more successful when their citizens are free, and that democracies are the closest allies we have.

     It is that truth that guides our action in Libya.  It would have been easy at the outset of the crackdown in Libya to say that none of this was our business -– that a nation’s sovereignty is more important than the slaughter of civilians within its borders.  That argument carries weight with some.  But we are different.  We embrace a broader responsibility.  And while we cannot stop every injustice, there are circumstances that cut through our caution -– when a leader is threatening to massacre his people, and the international community is calling for action.  That’s why we stopped a massacre in Libya.  And we will not relent until the people of Libya are protected and the shadow of tyranny is lifted.

     We will proceed with humility, and the knowledge that we cannot dictate every outcome abroad.  Ultimately, freedom must be won by the people themselves, not imposed from without.  But we can and must stand with those who so struggle.  Because we have always believed that the future of our children and grandchildren will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren are more prosperous and more free -– from the beaches of Normandy to the Balkans to Benghazi.  That is our interests and our ideals.  And if we fail to meet that responsibility, who would take our place, and what kind of world would we pass on?

     Our action -– our leadership -– is essential to the cause of human dignity.  And so we must act -– and lead -– with confidence in our ideals, and an abiding faith in the character of our people, who sent us all here today. 

     For there is one final quality that I believe makes the United States and the United Kingdom indispensable to this moment in history.  And that is how we define ourselves as nations.   

     Unlike most countries in the world, we do not define citizenship based on race or ethnicity.  Being American or British is not about belonging to a certain group; it’s about believing in a certain set of ideals — the rights of individuals, the rule of law.  That is why we hold incredible diversity within our borders.  That’s why there are people around the world right now who believe that if they come to America, if they come to New York, if they come to London, if they work hard, they can pledge allegiance to our flag and call themselves Americans; if they come to England, they can make a new life for themselves and can sing God Save The Queen just like any other citizen.

     Yes, our diversity can lead to tension.  And throughout our history there have been heated debates about immigration and assimilation in both of our countries.  But even as these debates can be difficult, we fundamentally recognize that our patchwork heritage is an enormous strength — that in a world which will only grow smaller and more interconnected, the example of our two nations says it is possible for people to be united by their ideals, instead of divided by their differences; that it’s possible for hearts to change and old hatreds to pass; that it’s possible for the sons and daughters of former colonies to sit here as members of this great Parliament, and for the grandson of a Kenyan who served as a cook in the British Army to stand before you as President of the United States.  (Applause.) 

     That is what defines us.  That is why the young men and women in the streets of Damascus and Cairo still reach for the rights our citizens enjoy, even if they sometimes differ with our policies.  As two of the most powerful nations in the history of the world, we must always remember that the true source of our influence hasn’t just been the size of our economies, or the reach of our militaries, or the land that we’ve claimed.  It has been the values that we must never waver in defending around the world — the idea that all beings are endowed by our Creator with certain rights that cannot be denied. 

     That is what forged our bond in the fire of war — a bond made manifest by the friendship between two of our greatest leaders.  Churchill and Roosevelt had their differences.  They were keen observers of each other’s blind spots and shortcomings, if not always their own, and they were hard-headed about their ability to remake the world.  But what joined the fates of these two men at that particular moment in history was not simply a shared interest in victory on the battlefield.  It was a shared belief in the ultimate triumph of human freedom and human dignity -– a conviction that we have a say in how this story ends. 

     This conviction lives on in their people today.  The challenges we face are great.  The work before us is hard.  But we have come through a difficult decade, and whenever the tests and trials ahead may seem too big or too many, let us turn to their example, and the words that Churchill spoke on the day that Europe was freed:

     “In the long years to come, not only will the people of this island but…the world, wherever the bird of freedom chirps in [the] human heart, look back to what we’ve done, and they will say ‘do not despair, do not yield…march straightforward’.”

     With courage and purpose, with humility and with hope, with faith in the promise of tomorrow, let us march straightforward together, enduring allies in the cause of a world that is more peaceful, more prosperous, and more just. 

     Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END 4:21 P.M. BST

Posted on Leave a comment

Death Cab for Cutie – You Are A Tourist

I do hope they come my way again– I missed them when they came through here the Summer of 2008.

Death-cab-for-cutie

Posted on Leave a comment

Goodbye, New York by Fred Siegel – City Journal


I’m a smart cookie to have taken the exit even before I entered it!

For more than 15 years, New York State has led the country in domestic outmigration: for every American who comes to New York, roughly two depart for other states. This outmigration slowed briefly following the onset of the Great Recession. But a new Marist poll released last week suggests that the rate is likely to increase: 36 percent of New Yorkers under 30 are planning to leave over the next five years. Why are all these people fleeing?

For one thing, according to a recent survey in Chief Executive, New York State has the second-worst business climate in the country. (Only California ranks lower.) People go where the jobs are, so when a state repels businesses, it repels residents, too. It’s also telling that in the Marist poll, 62 percent of New Yorkers planning to leave cited economic factors—including cost of living (30 percent), taxes (19 percent), and the job environment (10 percent)—as the primary reason.

In upstate New York, a big part of the problem is extraordinarily high property taxes. New York has the 15 highest-taxed counties in the country, including Nassau and Westchester, which rank first and second nationwide. Most of the property tax goes toward paying the state’s Medicaid bill—which is unlikely to diminish, since the state’s most powerful lobby, the political cartel created by the alliance of the hospital workers’ union and hospital management, has gone unchallenged by new governor Andrew Cuomo.

New York City doesn’t suffer from outmigration to the extent that the state does; in fact, the city grew slightly over the past decade, thanks to immigration. And there’s more work in Gotham than in the state as a whole. The problem is that the kind of work available shows that the city accommodates new immigrants much better than it supports middle-class aspirations. A recent report from the Drum Major Institute helps make sense of the Marist numbers: “The two fastest-growing industries in New York are also the lowest paid. More than half of the city’s employment growth over the past year has been in retail, hospitality, and food services, all of which pay their workers less than half of the city’s average wage.” Worse yet, more than 80 percent of the new jobs are in the city’s five lowest-paying sectors. Parts of the country are seeing a revival of manufacturing—traditionally a source of upward mobility for immigrants—but not New York City, whose manufacturing continues to decline. The culprits here include the city’s zoning policies, business taxes, and declining physical infrastructure.

Then there’s the cost of living in New York City. A 2009 report by the Center for an Urban Future found that “a New Yorker would have to make $123,322 a year to have the same standard of living as someone making $50,000 in Houston. In Manhattan, a $60,000 salary is equivalent to someone making $26,092 in Atlanta.” Even Queens, the report found, was the fifth most expensive urban area in the country.

The implications of Gotham’s hourglass economy—with all the action on the top and bottom, and not much in the middle—are daunting. The Drum Major report, which noted that 31 percent of the adults employed in New York work at low-wage labor, came with a political agenda. The institute wants the city to subsidize new categories of work by expanding the scope of “living-wage” laws, which require higher pay than minimum-wage laws do, to all businesses that receive city funds or contracts. But that would mean higher taxes for the middle class and a further narrowing of the hourglass’s midsection.

Governor Cuomo is calling for a property-tax cap, but without “mandate relief” for localities—for example, relaxing state laws that require localities to pay out exorbitant pension benefits. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has pledged not to increase local taxes, but even at their current level, city taxes and regulations will keep serving as an exit sign for aspiring twentysomething workers. In short, we can expect New York to lead the country in outmigration for the near future.

Fred Siegel is a contributing editor of City Journal, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a scholar in residence at St. Francis College in Brooklyn.

Posted on Leave a comment

Em Dashes—Why Writers Should Use Them More Sparingly via Slate

 

Emily Dickinson. Click image to expand.

Emily Dickinson

 

According to the Associated Press StylebookSlate‘s bible for all things punctuation- and grammar-related—there are two main prose uses—the abrupt change and the series within a phrase—for the em dash. The guide does not explicitly say that writers can use the dash in lieu of properly crafting sentences, or instead of a comma or a parenthetical or a colon—and yet in practical usage, we do. A lot—or so I have observed lately. America’s finest prose—in blogs, magazines, newspapers, or novels—is littered with so many dashes among the dots it’s as if the language is signaling distress in Morse code.

What’s the matter with an em dash or two, you ask?—or so I like to imagine. What’s not to like about a sentence that explores in full all the punctuational options—sometimes a dash, sometimes an ellipsis, sometimes a nice semicolon at just the right moment—in order to seem more complex and syntactically interesting, to reach its full potential? Doesn’t a dash—if done right—let the writer maintain an elegant, sinewy flow to her sentences?

 

Nope—or that’s my take, anyway. Now, I’m the first to admit—before you Google and shame me with a thousand examples in the comments—that I’m no saint when it comes to the em dash. I never met a sentence I didn’t want to make just a bit longer—and so the dash is my embarrassing best friend. When the New York Times’ associate managing editor for standards—Philip B. Corbett, for the record—wrote a blog post scolding Times writers for overusing the dash (as many as five dashes snuck their way into a single 3.5-paragraph story on A1, to his horror), an old friend from my college newspaper emailed it to me. “Reminded me of our battles over long dashes,” he wrote—and, to tell the truth, I wasn’t on the anti-dash side back then. But as I’ve read and written more in the ensuing years, my reliance on the dash has come to feel like a pack-a-day cigarette habit—I know it makes me look and sound and feel terrible—and so I’m trying to quit.

 

The problem with the dash—as you may have noticed!—is that it discourages truly efficient writing. It also—and this might be its worst sin—disrupts the flow of a sentence. Don’t you find it annoying—and you can tell me if you do, I won’t be hurt—when a writer inserts a thought into the midst of another one that’s not yet complete? Strunk and White—who must always be mentioned in articles such as this one—counsel against overusing the dash as well: “Use a dash only when a more common mark of punctuation seems inadequate.” Who are we, we modern writers, to pass judgment—and with such shocking frequency—on these more simple forms of punctuation—the workmanlike comma, the stalwart colon, the taken-for-granted period? (One colleague—arguing strenuously that certain occasions call for the dash instead of other punctuation, for purposes of tone—told me he thinks of the parenthesis as a whisper, and the dash as a way of calling attention to a phrase. As for what I think of his observation—well, consider how I have chosen to offset it.) 

Perhaps, in some way, the recent rise of the dash—and this “trend” is just anecdotal observation; I admit I haven’t found a way to crunch the numbers—is a reaction to our attention-deficit-disordered culture, in which we toggle between tabs and ideas and conversations all day. An explanation is not an excuse, though—as Corbett wrote in another sensible harangue against the dash, “Sometimes a procession of such punctuation is a hint that a sentence is overstuffed or needs rethinking.” Why not try for clarity in our writing—if not our lives?

 

It’s unclear—even among the printing community—when the em dash came into common usage. Folklore—if you’re willing to trust it—holds that it’s been around since the days of Gutenberg but didn’t catch on until at least the 1700s because the em dash wasn’t used in the Bible, and thus was considered an inferior bit of punctuation. The symbol derives its name from its width—approximately equal to an m—and is easily confused with its close cousin the en dash, used more frequently across the pond, but here meant only to offset sports scores and the like. The em dash isn’t easily formed on computers—it requires some special keystrokes on both PCs and Macs—and so I will admit that at least some of my bile comes from, as a copy editor, endlessly changing other writers’ sloppy em-dash simulacra (the double dash, the single offset dash) to the real thing.

 

Perhaps the most famous dash-user in history—though she didn’t use the em dash conventionally—was Emily Dickinson. According to the essay “Emily Dickinson’s Volcanic Punctuation” from a 1993 edition of The Emily Dickinson Journal—a true general-interest read!—”Dickinson’s excessive use of dashes has been interpreted variously as the result of great stress and intense emotion, as the indication of a mental breakdown, and as a mere idiosyncratic, female habit.” Can there really be—at the risk of sounding like a troglodyte—something feminine about the use of a dash, some sort of lighthearted gossamer quality? Compare Dickinson’s stylistic flitting with the brutally short sentences of male writers—Hemingway, for instance—who, arguably, use their clipped style to evoke taciturn masculinity. Henry Fielding apparently rewrote his sister Sarah’s work heavily to edit out some of her idiosyncrasies—chief among them, a devotion to the dash. In Gore Vidal’s Burr, the title character complains—in a charming internal monologue—”Why am I using so many dashes? Like a schoolgirl. The dash is the sign of a poor style. Jefferson used to hurl them like javelins across the page.” So is the rise of the dash related—as everything seems to be these days—to the End of Men? (I kid—calm down.)

 

More likely, it’s the lack of hard-and-fast usage rules—even the AP’s guidelines are more suggestions than anything—that makes the dash so popular in our post-sentence-diagramming era. According to Lynne Truss—the closest thing we’ve got to a celebrity grammarian, thanks to her best-seller Eats, Shoots and Leaves—people use the em dash because “they know you can’t use it wrongly—which for a punctuation mark, is an uncommon virtue.”

 

So, fine, the em dash is easy to turn to—any port will do in a storm. But if you want to make your point—directly, with clarity, and memorably—I have some advice you’d do well to consider. Leave the damn em dash alone.

 

slate.com 

Emily_dickinson_poet
Posted on Leave a comment

Commencement Speech @ Wheaton College by TIME's Rick Stengel

Keynote speech

Posted on May 21, 2011

RICHARD STENGEL:

Class of 2011, how are you? [Cheering] Louder!

So, basically, I’m the only thing standing between you and your diploma. Okay, so listen up.

So, graduation day. Fantastic! You’re here with your parents. You’ve been away for four years, but you know what? You’re going to get to know each other a lot better now, right? Because the Department of Labor says 85 percent of you are moving home.

Before I give a really important speech like this, I like to consult with colleagues of mine in the media. So I Googled Ann Curry and then I called her. And I said I’m going to talk about the media today and I wanted to talk to her about it. And we’re talking for a bit and she was weirdly uninformed about what I wanted to talk about, and I told her so. And she said, “Well, I’m Ann Curry from Springfield, Illinois. I’m an insurance claims adjuster.”

Well, imagine my surprise. The wrong Ann Curry.

So you know what I’m talking about. By the way, she gave a great speech last year. And she is a friend of mine. But what I really want to talk about is what happened there because it’s the difference between information and knowledge. And that is what you’ve really spent the last four years trying to figure out, which is the difference between information and knowledge. There has never been a time in human history where information was more easily accessible than it is now. And you saw what happened last year, because all information is not created equal.

And what I try to do every day in my job—and what I hope that you’ve learned over the last four years—is how to sort out the signal from the noise, how to separate the wheat from the chaff, how to separate information from knowledge and, even more importantly, what you need to do going forward is how to create knowledge out of information.

So what do I mean by that? A lot of this comes from Wikipedia, too.

Information is that the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919. Knowledge is how it is still influencing the Arab Spring of today.

Information is that a sonnet is a 14-line poem with a couplet at the end; but knowledge is that John Donne’s Holy Sonnets are as much about earthly love as divine love.

Information is the ingredients in a recipe; and knowledge is how to bake a soufflé.

Information these days is a commodity. It’s everywhere. You can’t get away from it.

Once upon a time, back in 1835 when Wheaton was founded, information was books. He who had the most books had the most information. Books were scarce; they were valuable. But information today is not. It’s not scarce. It’s not particularly valuable and it’s available to everybody equally by wireless Internet and with a few keystrokes on your computer or mobile device.

Knowledge is something different. Knowledge is understanding. Knowledge is how to put that information in context. Knowledge is the difference between knowing what and knowing why. And that’s what I hope you all learned over the last four years and that is what’s going to make you able to leave mom and dad’s house in a couple of years, I hope.

Now, in the world that I live in people always think they’re right. Now, I know that’s probably true of a lot of worlds, and maybe it’s even true of the faculty here. But part of what happens—ooh, that got a little bit of a … [laughter], that’s why they’re sitting behind the students—there’s a premium placed on opinions. There’s a premium placed on being outrageous, on being provocative—not necessarily having opinions that are rooted in reality and rooted in fact, but opinions that will get people’s attention. To me, that’s not very valuable.

The great New York senator, Pat Moynihan, once said, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. Now, I couldn’t agree more, but that has become a quaint notion in our society because even though there is more information available than there has ever been in history, people are basically inventing their own facts—and they’re using specious information to justify it. And that’s why—I have it right here—I brought my long-form birth certificate [laughter] to show that I was born in America.  [Applause and laughter]

At the same time, there is what I think of in my world and I think in American politics on the left and right, there’s an epidemic of certainty—people who are absolutely sure that they know that they’re right.  And I find this a little irksome. And those of you who have studied science know that modern neuroscience tells you that certainty is a state of mind; it’s not an appraisal of the state of the world. It’s some temporal lobe stimulation, some synapses firing in your brain, that gives you that feeling of knowing that you’re right. It doesn’t necessarily correspond to the world. The brain creates that feeling of rightness, not the world itself.

And of that, I am almost certain.

In fact, one of the things I am certain about is that certainty and democracy don’t go together. If you look at the leaders of the last 10 years who have had ironclad certainty, who are they? Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi. Totalitarianism is the place for certainty, not democracy.

I worked, as President Crutcher said, with Nelson Mandela over many, many years. He’s godfather to my two sons over there. And he’s not a man of self-doubt, by any means. But I would say there was only one thing about which he was absolutely certain, and that was that he needed to bring freedom and democracy to his people. After that, everything was up for grabs. I remember him saying many times I don’t know about you, but when circumstances change, I change my mind. That’s a great motto going forward.

Learned Hand was a great jurist in the 1940s, and he gave a speech in Central Park on the eve of World War II. And he said, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit that’s not too sure it’s right.”

“The spirit of liberty is the spirit that’s not too sure it’s right.”

Democracy is based on doubt. It’s based on wondering. It’s based on questioning: Are we doing the fair thing? Are we doing the right thing? Are we doing the just thing? It’s not about certainty. So I’m telling you today: Beware of certainty.

Beware of ideas and theories that cannot be tested.

Beware of people who know that they’re right.

So, let’s see, how much of a downer has this speech been so far? [Laughter] Right? You were expecting all those fantastic commencement platitudes, like: Follow your bliss. You can be whatever you want to be. Never give up. That same Google search showed that those are the three most common things said at all commencements.

Because look. You know it already, right? You can’t always be whatever you want to be. Not everybody can. There are all kinds of obstacles and roadblocks and sometimes you do have to take a turn that you don’t want. And sometimes you do have to give up.

But here’s what I will tell you. Be in the world. Try to make it better every way you can. Stand for something more than yourself. Be kind—because kindness, every act of kindness, is an act of strength. Do the work. Get in the game.

 

Which reminds me of an old story. There’s a young recent graduate of a four-year liberal arts college, and he’s standing on the Brooklyn Bridge. He’s disconsolate. His name is Max. He’s praying and praying, “Oh, God, please let me win the lottery, please God, let me win the lottery.” Over and over.

And then he hears someone say, “Max, Max.”

And he says, “Who’s that?”

“It’s God.”

Max says, “Come on, get out of here, I learned that you don’t exist, in college.” [Laughter]

“Max, look, I’m trying to help you.”

But Max says, “Please, God, let me win the lottery. Please let me win the lottery.” Over and over.

And God says, “Max. Meet me halfway. Buy a ticket.” [laughter]

So that’s my advice for you today, which is: Buy a ticket for life. Meet me halfway. Go for it. You won’t regret it.

 

Good luck to you all. Thank you very much. 

Rickstengel

Posted on Leave a comment

Bin Laden, We Laugh In Order To Keep From Going Mad

 

Att00001

 
 
 

Att00002

 

Att00003

 

Att00004

 

Att00005

 
 
 

Att00006

 
 
 

Att00007

 
 

Att00008

 
 
 

Att00009

 

Att00010

 

Att00011

 

Att00002

 

Att00003

 
 
 

Att00004

 

Att00005

 
 

Att00006

 
 
 

Att00017

 
 

Att00018

 
 

Att00009

 
 

Att00020

 
 

Att00021

 

 

Att00014

Att00015

Posted on Leave a comment

The Barry Gibb Talk Show w/Jimmy Fallon and Justin Timberlake 5/21 SNL

This had to be THE most hilarious segment on SNL this past weekend. It is absolutely HI-Larious on soooooo many levels! Gotta love the falsettos! 

Saturday-night-live

Posted on Leave a comment

043/365/01

The Mediterranean Condiment Bar at our local Whole Foods store.  Every kind of olive and roasted red pepper, if you please.

Medbar