Granted, it's Anu's facility, but am I the only one who resents the injection of his political beliefs into a Word.a.Day?

no: link

There is, however, more than one way to interpret his "and not a moment too soon" comment. As a word freak (like many of us), Anu has suffered for the past 8 years with a president who found it nearly impossible to extemporaneously put together a coherent sentence that did not contradict itself. It truly made me cringe at times. You could ask Anu what he meant, but I do think it's possible he was referring to the language aspect of Mr. Bush. Now, he can kill two birds with one stone with that statement, and it still doesn't decisively refer to the president's politics. Of course, it is, as you say, Anu's facility, but this one is at least ambiguous. :0)

I for one am impressed by Anu's scholarship but if he runs the site he has the privilege of posting whatever he wants

In this connection it's pertinent to note that WS is probably the most liberal site of its kind and I say this advisedly because I've been banned from others, sometimes for the most innocent infraction

For instance I was thrown off one for using the terms "Muslim" and "George Bush" in the same sentence though with a bit of pejorative slant. At another where I had been dragged over the coals for injecting slight political implications such as Anu is criticized for, I prefaced my last post with an invitation to Admin that if it didn't meet their protocol I would understand if they deleted it; but instead in a fit of overreaction I was banned altogether

I must admit however that with the former I was on probation and was allowed to rejoin after 3 only months. From another I was dispatched for six years. Once a year I'd email their Admin asking if I might be reinstated, pointing out that even murderers get paroled, but with no response. Finally I was allowed to rejoin but after 10 posts somehow I evidently embarrassed their Admin once more, was accused of "trolling" and once again banned--presumably for another six years

For one reason or another, though, I've been repeatedly and royally castigated here on WS (once for not using a period at the end of a paragraph) without getting utterly rejected and so want to convey my thanks to whomever's in charge for his/her forbearance

Another pertinent observation: a typical site of this kind has 25 rules of protocol and they're all different. For instance, at one you mustn't make reference to another but it's ok to provide a link; at another but it's ok to name it but you mustn't provide a link. At a third it's ok to post both so long as you don't make unfavorable comparisons

At still another a post dealing with some aspect of language but with slight political implications, even though some of these implications contradict one another and were meant only as examples of the topic under consideration, even though these aspects of the thread are obvious, they must be spelled out as if the other participants are all illiterate

Thus if you subscribe to 25 such sites you have to remember and faithfully observe 625 different rules. In short, the typical Internet Web Site [present company excepted] attracts many common folk and especially Admin types of a sort judgmental, autocratic, disdainful, imperative, magisterial, officious, peremptory, supercilious; in short, Power Freaks

So my heartfelt deferences to Anu for all his work and for his infinite tolerance
of trollers like me

dale, sometimes you really do have no clue. in this matter, due to some actual litigation (or threat thereof) some years ago, Anu has been advised to post a Disclaimer (see bottom of page) and stand aside. that's really all there is to it.

Hi tsu. In fact I believe the threat you cite caused a pullout of many participants and the establishment of another such, the name of which I'm not sure whether protocol allows mention. It's interesting to note however, that not long after joining that one too I was banned for one reason or another though I'm still going strong here thanks to its more liberal approach

Thank you for all your past and current responses, you're indeed a thoughtful fellow. However, if my thinking bothers you as it appears to sometimes, where you see my username you are welcome to skip the post. In any case I am yours with new add. dalehileman@me.com

two: Who is this president to whom you have reference

I suppose I could have been explicit and mentioned the United States of America, but I thought the phrase "president for the past 8 years" and the name "Mr. Bush" were sufficient. In any case, I was referring to (still the president of the USA for a few more hours) George Walker Bush. :0)

I agree with this post, it is a releave to look forward to a leader who knows how to express himself clearly, clearer than many other leaders in the world at this moment. Disregarding political facts or results. There is no reason for controversy on this forum
as long as we hold on to this agreement:
to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it. Anyway, there is no threat unless you fear it.

Politics aside, it seems likely that a linear connection exists between clarity of thought and clarity of language.

I disagree. I am not dyslexic or language-impaired, but I know some people who are. Most of them are excellent thinkers, but may have difficulty translating those thoughts into words, written or spoken. Many people simply have great anxiety when speaking in front of a group, and therefore become linguistically paralyzed. I do think your idea is true in some cases, but most certainly not all. As for Mr. Bush, ? :0)

Another interpretation is the welcome end of any "lame duck" period. Regardless of politics, this often looong-seeming period from early November to mid January after a new president has been elected is finally over. During this period, it seems like not much can be done effectively, the new policies people voted for cannot get started, odd pardons are issued, etc. Whether you like the change or not, sometimes you wish they could just get on with it. ;-)

To the issue in general, it seems that the three things that people talk about the most are politics, religion, and sex thus there are a great many words associated with these things and a great many interesting quotes in these areas. To come up with a theme every week and to come up with an interesting quote containing a random word every day while keeping a perfect balance between all possible views or only quoting "safe" sources seems like a daunting task indeed, but I have been enjoying the words rather than keeping score of which side(s) are ahead in the quotation score.

Myr thank you for that evenhanded post

two: Of course, how embarrassing, I should have reread your post, my speedreading capabilities notwithstanding

By sheer coincidence, with apologies to all who decry the political post in WS, following is a pertinent message I receive this morning containing email from angry right-leaning buddy Jim and thoughtful left-leaning Darrel with my replies (***) hinting perhaps my own inclination [Sky being my very excellent left-leaning No. 2 Son]. In my own defense however, it does have to do peripherally with language--discussing the term "cohere"-- and was prompted by a piece by Anu

...keeping in mind that it's email, and that messages are therefore in reverse order

On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Jim wrote:

In this day of men running to whoever will say what their itching ears long to hear
O"Bama flings random shit against the wall and goes with what will cohere.
Change? tsk.

********Very poetic Jim

From: Dale Hileman <dalehileman@me.com>
Date: January 20, 2009 8:00:38 AM PST
To: Darrel
Subject: Re: A.Word.A.Day--cohere

On Jan 19, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Darrel wrote:

Dale,

The piece [below, from Anu] does not seem too overstated, slanted or otherwise overboard. I haven't read any of Obama's writings as of yet but, based on the speeches I have heard, I would bet they would be much better reading than anything coming out of the Bush league.

***No question about that but I too must admit I haven't either. [I get my major reading material at garage sales so it will be a couple of years yet]

I have read/heard many statements far and away too sweet and rosy about what will come from an Obama reign. I can somewhat understand this super-optimism as it has been a long time since we had a President that didn't make most literates cringe when our leader spoke.

***Agree, to hear GWB speak I was always embarrassed for our country: "This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot" or "I am against hard quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever" or "The suicide bombings have increased, there's too many of them" and pertinent to recent events, "There's nothing more deep than recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought of all. I can't think of anything more deep than that right"

Bush was an embarrassment to all who were not tied up in the concept that "our guy won"; had he been a Democrat, the right would have been all over his light weight intellect. I feel sorry for George as I truly believe he still doesn't understand how dim he really was/is (for a President of the U.S. that is.)

*****Strangely enough I had much the same reaction. But it proves in a democracy we get what we deserve. Perhaps I should not Fwd this message to Jim. Note to Sky: Darrel Jim and Jim are two of my most interesting corespondents coming respectively from the left and right

Obama will not embarrass us in front of the world; he may make choices about governing that many will find wrong but no one will say he made up his mind early because it was too much work to fully understand the issues or that his advisers made the choices for him...

***We shall see, let us hope

*****Darrel
**Dale


----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Hileman
To: Darrel ; Jim
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 8:04 AM
Subject: Fwd: A.Word.A.Day--cohere

*******As the country's most resoundingly unpublished writer I was especially interested in the clip below, thus solicit you guys' reactions, especially Darrel (Left) and Jim (Right)

*********My own reaction, for what it's worth, which might not be much, was all in favor of Obama, impressed as I was by his audacity and coherence but my estimation dropped a notch when he switched from public to private campaign funding though voted for him anyhow and leaning slightly to the right in matters fiscal, another notch after it was too late after he endorsed the huge giveaway identified by the euphemism, "bailout" [ergo, language related]

*********Look Fwd to hearing from youall--best regards--Dale

Begin forwarded message:

From: Wordsmith <wsmith@wordsmith.org>
Date: January 18, 2009 9:10:30 PM PST
To: dalehileman@me.com
Subject: A.Word.A.Day--cohere

Tomorrow Barack Obama will become president of the US, and not a moment too soon. This week we'll feature words from Obama, words from his books, speeches, and interviews.
Unlike most politicians, who hire ghostwriters, Obama writes his own books. He's a gifted writer. Reading his words you can see his thought process. He's not one who sees the globe in black and white. He has lived outside the US and has been exposed to other cultures. He realizes that just because someone has a different set of beliefs, just because someone looks different, doesn't mean he's wrong -- sometimes there can be two ways to do something and both can be right.

Obama is to be commended for his accomplishments. We've come a long way in this country. But we still have far to go before we can call ourselves truly unbiased. Real progress will be when any capable person can have a fair chance at winning the highest office, even someone who happens to be, say, a black gay vegan atheist woman.

Anything is possible... but don't hold your breath.

cohere


PRONUNCIATION:
(ko-HEER)

MEANING:
verb intr.: To be united; to work or hold together.

ETYMOLOGY:
From Latin cohaerere, from co- (together) + haerere (to stick).

USAGE:
"I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds, understanding that each possessed its own language and customs and structures of meaning, convinced that with a bit of translation on my part the two worlds would eventually cohere."
Barack Obama; Dreams >From My Father; Times Books; 1995.

A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -Martin Luther King, Jr., civil-rights leader (1929-1968)

***Myr, speaking of politics and sex, my own thought for the day: ...and I hear he was quite a stud, too

you want apolitical linguistics? our newly inaugerated 44th president is actually only the 43rd person to be president: link

-joe (no nit picked before its time) friday

Oh, for goodness sake, what an ace in the whole, I fail to understand this. ( can one explain these mathematics to a dummy? )

Grover Cleveland served two terms non-contiguously; i.e., he was both the twenty-second and twenty-fourth President of the U.S.

And Warren said that this would be the forty-fourth transfer of power. Also not true. The transfer of power is counted by the number of the out-going president. George Washington did not come into the office through a transfer of power.

Faldage is only partially correct. Actually Washington did come into office via a transfer of power; but it was a transfer effected by a "constitutional" change. There were "presidents" before Washington but they were only "presidents of congress" under the Articles of Confederation and not a President of these United States. Therefore the power of administration was transferred from the congress to Washington. The "presidents of congress" under the Articles of Confederation were little more than parliamentary moderators. I think it was John Hanson who was the first such "president." The postal service issued a stamp honoring him a decade or so ago.

ahh but you mustn't misunderestimate the man!

Seriously though, and this is not a political comment, but a comment on the mass media, George Bush is not an intellectual pygmy, despite his various gaffs. This is an unbiased view. I am no fan of his administration, which I think will be judged by history as one of the worst ever, and if I were an American would not have voted for him, so it's not a case of being pro-Republican in saying this, but of being fair to the man. I think he has had a raw deal by the mass media, who have put him in the box labelled "buffoon" and edited their footage accordingly. The facts speak otherwise - he reads widely, has a higher than average IQ, and by many accounts from those who have met him is a charming and likeable man. Perhaps he really is dyslexic, since many of his speech errors appear to be typical of reading words or letters in the wrong order. And he did make some real blunders. But the TV media and press could make the most intelligent man in the world look like a moron if they put their mind to it and thought it would sell advertising.

Here is a list of the presidents of the Continental Congress.

Would not bet my hat on that. The other way around yes, that has been tried often enough with reasonable succes.

Let's all google "Bushisms" at once and break the internet...

I agree that he seems affable enough, and I would probably find him likable were I to actually to meet him. But it nearly hurts me physically to hear such mutilation of the language. I once worked for a man whom I greatly respect, to this day, but every time we had a meeting and he mentioned the one "pacific" problem we needed to work on, I cringed. But this was one of very few consistent errors, and the man could talk Bush under a table. Yes, Bush has an IQ above 100; so do half of those taking the test, and many of them cannot speak clearly, either. He does read, mostly in response (lately) to a challenge with Karl Rove, and although I might not call it "widely", he has read a great deal. This does not stop him from appearing confused when confronted with a string of uncommon words, or when trying to craft a verbal response. And I want to see the ad campaign to paint Einstein as an idiot... ;0)

Well, joe friday appears to be the only one who shares my sentiment.

First, I appreciate Anu not doing what the leftist-controlled mainstream media would normally do and banning me from the forum. With the Left, there is NO freedom of speech unless you agree.

Second, I find it interesting that almost all the responses went directly to the "stupidity" of our President. How many of you are good at public speaking? Obviously, this is not Bush's strong suit, but in no way does it indicate his stupidity. Shame on the Left for allowing its hatred of Bush (and really, what he stood for) to blind it to anything good he has done.

Third, I find the past eight-year period of hatred for Bush (from the US and abroad) to be breathtaking. The smug, supercilious press, who would have us believe that it knows best for us, and who operates under a double standard, IS the problem in our country. The job of the press should be to present both sides of any topic and allow us to decide for ourselves (unless we, like Bush, are too stupid). Sadly, this no longer occurs.

Finally, it's up to me to decide if I wish to continue listening to Anu's politics. My only recourse will be to vote with my feet. But my original point still stands: we all love words and language. But none of us needs to be subjected to someone else's politics, even if we agree. Politics has no place in A Word a Day.

>Politics has no place in A Word a Day.

but hey, thanks muchly for expressing *Your special views.
/sarcasm

/give me strength.

et moi !

Which means that, if you consider the transition from the presidency of the Continental Congress to the modern Presidency, there were 60 transitions of power. If I remember my civics class lessons correctly, the Continental Congress didn't really have what you might call power.

If I remember my civics class lessons correctly, the Continental Congress didn't really have what you might call power.

They waged a war against a rather powerful state and won it.

Well, a rather powerful state that didn't really have its heart in it. And that says nothing about the power thay had over the state that resulted. They didn't hold a constitutional convention because they already had a successful govenment

And that 'powerful state' was headed by a mad monarch.

And I want to see the ad campaign to paint Einstein as an idiot...

I was trying to find a picture of him with Marilyn Monroe, to show ... well, who knows. However, according to all available information (aka the interweb), they never met. Ignoring his unfailing belief in a God, which unto itself is fine and may well be accurate but which led to him spending many years trying to disprove his own theories, I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment.

And just for fun... Einstein v Monroe

Note: that's a God. Einstein's God wasn't what most people think of when they think "God". As for disproving his own theories, that's what science is about. Not all scientists are up to the task of trying to disprove their own theories, but someone's gotta do it.

What Faldage says is true. There's a lot of urban myths about Einstein and his ideas about God, etc. Einstein's "God" was, like most else about the man, a fairly idiosyncratic one.

not so sure about that.


and thanks for the link, Fald.

Political beliefs? Can you expand please, provide some quotes.

I didn't notice anything here or there about last week's theme. The inauguration was historical, (and extremely popular, world-wide). Why can we not take notice without our own politics coming through?

From the link, "'the President who served during the Nth term'. If that were true, George Washington would be both the first and second President"

I disagree with this. Washington was not 2 presidents. He was one president who won a second term. Was George Bush 2 presidents? No, he was one, who served a second term.

the difference with Grover Cleveland was, quoting myself here, he served two terms non-contiguously; i.e., he was both the twenty-second and twenty-fourth President. how else would you deal with the numbering without making things *more complicated to explain than that?

But why shouldn't it be complicated? After all, choosing the President is part of one of the most convoluted, complex, incomprehensible ways of doing democracy in the free world!

Until I'm president, it's going to be hard for me to verify that I think I'll be more effective--
GWB