a semi-regular column of Truths, Half Truths, and Mostly Truths by Semi.
Volume I, Issue 18 · posted August 15, 2001
SEMI-TRUTHS is still on a semi-hiatus (naturally) while I concentrate on some administrative tasks for the website and mailing list and focus on some other projects that I have begun. In my previous column, I stated "this stuff practically writes itself!" That's not true, of course, but fortunately for me, many of my readers do write. For the duration of this column, then, I turn this space over to my readers, functioning more as an editor and leaving my commentary to a minimum...
I was a little worried regarding what kind of reaction I might get to Issue 17 announcing my new project, ReagansBrain.com.
In my columns, I have strived to keep my humor hovering somewhere between droll and middlebrow; trying, if not always succeeding, to avoid the openly coarse. With that standard in mind, I floated the petition past a few people who have had personal experience dealing with the Alzheimer's, including some who have lost relatives to the disease. The initial reactions that I received were positive enough to encourage me to go ahead and "reveal" ReagansBrain to my loyal readers. The subsequent response was not universally enthusiastic. One reader who is a dear and trusted friend wrote:
"I'm afraid I think this time you have surpassed even your own ability for poor taste. While renaming Alzheimer's might be a fitting tribute to Reagan's presidency and might explain all sorts of previously unjustified gaffes in that administration, it would not serve to add to the respect or attention given to a condition that debilitates many others who have not had the opportunity to so publicly demonstrate the effects of the disease. Anyway, it's already named after someone..."
I am afraid that I foreswore my membership in the league of the Politically Correct when I decided to take on the mantle of political humor writer. To paraphrase others, politics makes strange bedfellows and comedy is not pretty, so by logical extension, political humor makes for some ugly bedfellows.
I stated in my column that "my intention is not to make light of a serious medical condition that affects millions of Americans"; apparently, I failed in that objective as far as some are concerned. The object of my lampoon is an unsavory group that is attempting to whitewash the accomplishments of a confused and dangerous former world leader with a patina of rosy nostalgia that ignores the long-lasting detrimental affects his narrow-minded ineptitude had on our country. Satire that does not provoke is not good satire.
Another progressive web writer whom I admire, George Loper of http://www.loper.org/~george/, wrote:
"I assume given the content and the copyrights for your piece on Reagan's Brain that it is meant as satire or parody. Taken in this vein, it's a bit too edgy for me, even though I do understand that your tongue is placed firmly in your cheek. I have too many friends and relations who are close to someone who has Alzheimer's. If, on the other hand, it is meant to seriously educate people about Alzheimer's (albeit in a humorous way), I think the effort is misplaced and that the analogy with Lou Gehrig's disease is off base.
"I believe what makes the designation of Lou Gehrig's Disease poignant is, in part, that it is a disease which involves paralysis and involves the death, as you say, of someone who had a great career in baseball; i.e. someone with great physical prowess struck down by a disease which leaves them paralyzed.
"Alzheimer's, on the other hand, is as you say a deteriorative brain disorder and is primarily associated with memory loss, impaired judgment and profound confusion. There are many people, myself included, who are sorry that President Reagan suffered from this disease, but do not believe that most of his political actions or of his lapses in memory were the result of Alzheimer's.
"Reagan's false remembrance, for example, that that he had been `there´ at the liberation of the German concentration camps in the spring of 1945 [http://www.loper.org/~george/trends/2001/Jun/33.html] would appear to be more of the consequence of his ability to empathize than an effect of the disease."
"While his stint as a moderator for Death Valley Days clearly established Reagan as a great communicator and his alliance with Joseph McCarthy clearly established Reagan's credentials for the conservative right, I do not believe this makes or made him the man of the hour and do not believe that he deserves, unlike Lou Gehrig, to be recognized in such auspicious ways, especially those proposed by The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project [http://loper.org/~george/archives/2001/Jul/83.html]."
I will leave it to the historians to debate whether Reagan displayed early onset AD during his presidency and his administration conspired to cover it up. Certainly, I was among those whom, when it was announced that he did have AD, reacted with no visible surprise.
The point about the parallel to "Lou Gehrig's Disease" is well taken; it is sad and ironic to note that, in an attempt to satirize the misplaced hero-worship of an inept world leader, I can be perceived as having belittled the poignancy of another disease named after a great athlete.
what do you think? email me
My exploration of the F-word prompted several reminisces. My newfound internet friend Rose Rose of the marvelous FringeFolk website wrote:
"Your comments on the debate reminded me of a rant I wrote a while back called 'My Fiend Across the Aisle', in which I wrote a dialogue between two congressmen on Hannity & Colmes. I honestly think people would get MUCH more involved in politics if politicians would speak their minds instead of always droning on and on about 'my friend across the aisle' and other bunk."
You can find Rose's amusing and insightful article at http://www.fringefolk.com/fiend.html.
Meanwhile, my old and dear internet friend Kris Sabo (owner of "the wildest page in the West", a wonderful site dedicated to one of my favorite TV shows, The Wild Wild West) recalled a cherished childhood memory of the time that a bunch of "grown-ups" came up with a grand plan to cure the young ones from swearing:
"...starting with me, they would make each kid say a new, different 'dirty' word until we were so plain old sick of them, we quit thinking they were even remotely funny. We protested, but the Adults threatened until we complied. I chose my usual first choice — f*ck. Wendy chose sh*t. Etc. NONE of us Kids laughed. Not even once. We, the supposedly 'potty-word obsessed' thought the whole thing was beyond stupid. But the Adults, our accusers, fell over themselves giggling like little idiots until tears ran out of their eyes for over two full hours! Needless to say, the Big Plan had Z-E-R-O effect on we Kids, but the so-called Adults were simply thrilled with the new funny words they added to their vocabulary courtesy of us that night. Sheesh."
Kris then goes on to cite the sheer usefulness of the F-word with the following anecdote:
"At a Marine boot camp, a Sergeant was having some new recruits completely tear down their standard issue rifles and rebuilt them for best time. One of the recruits was having trouble with his gun. He kept trying to tell the Sergeant that his weapon was not working properly. The Sergeant figured the kid just didn't know what he was doing. After yelling at the recruit for the nth-time, the now-pissed off Sergeant grabs the gun and tries to tear it down. It totally jammed, refusing to come apart. After a few moments of trying to force the damn thing into submission, the Sergeant gives up, exclaiming, "the f*ckin' f*cker's f*ckin' f*cked!"
"Originally just a simple verb, now an: adjective, noun, adverb, AND verb! What a versatile word."
Indeed.
Another new friend named Pia writes:
"I once sent a client an essay on the F-word, having done some research myself. It is my understanding that it is an importation into English from those Norse sailors who gave us all the sh-- and sk-- words, and that it replaced a perfectly good, wonderfully useful Anglo-Saxon word: swive.
"Chaucer wrote 'Well-swivéd was the wife of Bath'. As I recall, she had three husbands (and the word was obviously not considered "off-limits" in Chaucer's time). You may be amused to learn — if you haven't already — that this is the origin of our word "swivel." More surprising, it is also the root for "swift." As in rabbits?
"I've always heard it pronounced with an 'i' as in 'knife' but it could be that the Anglo-Saxons pronounced it as the 'i' in 'swivel'. I suspect, however, that in the latter case the spelling would be different, perhaps 'swiff'. (It wasn't unusual for stem vowels to change).
It is a wonderful word with which I was not previously familiar. According to Dictionary.com:
swive\Swive\, v. t.; to copulate with (a woman). [Obs.] --Chaucer.
Of all the responses I received, however, I hope you will forgive me for being the most taken with this succinct but sublime message:
"I’m glad you like the book. You may want to know that there’s a second edition of it out, which adds various words, some early examples, and an extended introduction. I enjoyed your brief column on the subject. Thanks for helping to keep the book in the public eye.
Best,Jesse Sheidlower
[Yes, that Jesse Sheidlower, editor of The F-Word!]
what's your response? email me
Not too surprisingly, I received several emotional responses to Issue 15, my denunciation of the Death Penalty (in fact, that issue cost me a couple of subscribers). Although I try to keep these columns generally light in tone, this forum frequently serves as a vehicle for my Id and my Ego to do battle in public and work out some of the conflicts that I feel as a rational and emotional being. However, what might be a purely intellectual exercise for me is going to hit closer to home for others whose experiences I do not share.
Here, now, is where I stand back and marvel at the courage of my own readers who have had some personal experience with the cold hand of the executioner and still marshal the strength to speak their minds.
My well-spoken and admirable friend Barbara Cornett writes one such personal note:
"As far as the death penalty is concerned, I am theoretically opposed, but in fact for it. Does that make sense? My dad was killed when I was four. The man who killed him had already killed in North Carolina then moved to TN and killed my dad. This man got to see his grandkids, he got to live his life after having taken the lives of other men. My mother had to walk past him on the sidewalks of our small town, and deal with him and his family when they came into the store where she worked. And he destroyed the families of these men he killed. I don't really give a shit about deterrence, or rehabilitation or whatever. I just don't think he had a right to live when he denied that right to others. If you take a life you should have to forfeit your own, period and I feel strongly about this. Penitentiary means to do penitence. I believe in rehabilitation but not for murderers or child molesters."
Barbara's touching tale of the death of her father can be found at http://www.geocities.com/storiessouth/index.html.
The aforementioned Kris Sabo presents another side in her eloquent letter:
"I didn't lose anyone in Oklahoma City, no. As a youngster, My Mother the Hippie often took me and my little sister to 'hang out' with her and her hippie friends and siblings in a number of happenin' King County, WA, parks. Parks like Lake Sammamish State Park, Marymoor Park, Vasa Park. Parks in which unbeknownst to all of us, one Ted Bundy was hunting his prey at that period in time. One groovy afternoon while we kids were forced to hang out with mom et al at Sammamish rather than go to the movies or something, ole' Ted tried to pick up my hippie aunt who, along with my mother, fit his victim profile to a T. 'Could you help me tie my boat to the roof of my VW bug? I hurt my arm...'
"Thank <your deity here> that Aunt Liz's stoned boyfriend finally woke up and stumbled over to find out who was hitting on his girlfriend. This is in my background. Theodore Bundy Summer - a major period in my childhood. But no, I did not lose anyone in Oklahoma City.
"I cannot begin to respond thoroughly to the 'death penalty as punishment question' without writing a herc'in book on the topic, filled with what-ifs and point-counterpoints. What I will do is to speak to what IS at this moment in time.
"What is, is that real criminals that do go to jail may not have their freedom, but they have cable TV, weight rooms, libraries, and room and board gratis to them but coming out of my hard-earned, meager, under-paid income.
"What is, is that the judicial system in this country at this time is seriously flawed in oh so many ways, just a few of which you touched upon.
"What is, is that coming arm-in-arm with these flaws is the potential for the most violent of offenders to be freed or escape well before they have finished what a jury of their peers has decided is the right amount of 'hard time' to reform them. Witness too large a fraction of the pure scum profiled on America's Most Wanted that are on the lam because of just a few of the problems in our judicial system that may allow such their freedom in one way or other.
"Given what is, the bottom line for me is:
1. I do not want to pay for scum's somewhat luxurious recreation while supposedly being 'reformed' by their incarceration to the tune of five figures of tax payer money per year, while at the same time I am handed a government check for a whopping $300 in the guise of 'well deserved tax relief'. Give me an effing break.
2. I will not accept any remote chance of utter filth like McVeigh (or IMMHO someone who premeditatedly drives drunk, commits rape, child molestation, etc.) to ever EVER regain their freedom and thus their potential to harm one more soul, no matter whose mistake in what part of the judicial system allows this to happen. Just how many times did Ted Bundy escape? Ask the parents of the two female co-eds and that 12 year old girl, Kimberly Leach, in Florida. Their answer? 'One too many'.
"Until the judicial system is reformed in such a manner as to guarantee that I, or anyone, is never subject to #1 or #2, guarantee that scum like McVeigh are never again a threat. If that means topping 'em, then that is what it means. I cannot tell you how badly we the good, fair-minded people of King County, WA wanted Mr. Ted Bundy extradited, sent back to us. We good, liberal-minded, democrat-voting left-wingers would have hanged the filthy bastard on the spot. My 'love-and-peace, man' hippie-chick aunt would have gone to the hanging with popcorn in hand ... and cried as all of us in King Co cried for the three young dead in Florida who lost their lives because a Ted Bundy slipped through multiple aspects of our flawed judicial system. Her tears would not have been hypocrisy, but frustration. Pure frustration at a system that appears to leave us no choice but to kill in its name.
"Until things change, this is what is."
I lived in L.A. when Richard Ramirez (The Night Stalker) was loose; I know well what it's like to live under that kind of shadow. I think the thoughtful arguments presented here only fortify my thinking, however. We spend way too much time and effort trying to put our citizens to death while too few resources are devoted to rehabilitation and reformation of our justice system.
Does it bother me that someone like Richard Ramirez is still alive and "enjoying" life behind bars? Yes. But the idea of the state, in my name, putting him to death bothers me more.
My longtime friend Lyle Darnell addresses a similar theme when she writes:
"I decided long ago that if I wasn't willing to push the button, empty the mousetrap, throw the switch, inject the lethal or pull the trigger all by myself, then I couldn't support somebody else doing it while I looked away. All I felt was creepy the day I woke up and realized McVeigh had been executed an hour earlier, although I do admit I felt much creepier the day of the bombing."
Geez, yeah. The whole thing is creepy, but I am grateful to all of you who are willing to respond. Fellow Virginian Stan Kustesky agrees with some of my points:
"You have hit the issue squarely when you state that it is for revenge and revenge alone that the death penalty exists in this so-called sophisticated, urbane, and cultured world (ha!). For all the religious piety that oozes about us these past 10 years or so, everyone seems to have forgotten that such a desire is anathema to the core beliefs of every set of religious tenets. The most difficult idea to face, I think, is how to comprehend the enormous emotions involved in the act of terrorism or murder in the first place. The lowest level possible is revenge; the incredibly difficult ideal is forgiveness. If you have never read The Attica Report, you might try to track it down, especially for its first third or so. Tom Wicker of The New York Times was one of the authors and was on Rockefeller's commission that studied that particular tragedy. It is the most concise explanation of the genesis of prisons and social attitudes towards crime that I have read. Here it is nearly 30 years later and I can still recall the power of that report because it resonates against the current climate. One would think that a civilized society such as we claim to be would have developed a little further after Attica; that we have devolved is more frightening than I care to think about."
Another reader brings up a point that I glossed over:
"One thing you didn't mention is the racial and economic make-up of the juries on capital cases. The members have to be people who can afford to not work for long periods of time and that often ends up disproportionately being retired white people. Some interesting studies have looked at just who those people are and found that potential jurors are more often white, republican men. African Americans, woman, and Democrats were twice as likely to strongly object to the death penalty. Further, studies have also shown that the remaining potential jurors were more prone to favor the prosecutor’s viewpoint, more likely to distrust criminal defendants, and more concerned with crime control than due process. All in all biased against defendants, especially if the accused is a Leftist African American man.'
The phenomenon is known as "Death-qualified juries", or juries that are made up of people who, during the jury screening process, have stated that they would be willing to impose the death penalty in a capital murder case. In a number of different studies, the death-qualified jurors were significantly more likely to return a guilty verdict than juries that included even a single "Witherspoon excludable" juror (so named after the Supreme Court case Witherspoon v. Illinois, 1968). In addition, the overall quality of deliberations was much more poor. There was less disagreement, which means that the jury was much more homogenous, there was less discussion, and less of an exchange of distinct viewpoints.
According to information at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/05.html
In Witherspoon v. Illinois, the Court held that the exclusion in capital cases of jurors conscientiously scrupled about capital punishment, without inquiring whether they could consider the imposition of the death penalty in the appropriate case, violated a defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury. Inasmuch as the jury is given broad discretion whether or not to fix the penalty at death, the Court ruled, the jurors must reflect "the conscience of the community" on the issue, and the automatic exclusion of all scrupled jurors "stacked the deck" and made of the jury a tribunal "organized to return a verdict of death." A court may not refuse a defendant's request to examine potential jurors to determine whether they would vote automatically to impose the death penalty; general questions about fairness and willingness to follow the law are inadequate.
The most comprehensive examination of "Death Qualified Juries" that I could find was at the website of condemned criminal Rolf Kaestel. It makes for uneasy reading at http://maxpages.com/darkevilworld.
Death be not loud? email me
Finally, a correction and a follow-up...
In Issue 13, I discussed "words with male attributes", and offered the following definition:
"Testis (as in testicle) is also the root of testify, testimony, testament, and attest. In our modern court system, we accept the idea of a witness promising to tell the truth by putting one hand on the Bible. In Old English courts, however, it was believed that only a man could be trusted to speak truthfully, and he would declare his intent by putting his hand, uh ... elsewhere, and swearing that he was telling the truth or risk losing his testicles. (One should imagine that Old English courts had a lower incidence of perjury.)"
It's an interesting derivation, but I offered no actual proof of it and, as it turns out, I was probably wrong. According to the 10.11.99 issue of Take Our Word For It ("the only Weekly Word-origin Webzine"):
"...(testify) is first recorded in English in the late 14th century as testifie, having come from Late Latin testificare ‘to bear witness, proclaim’. That word was formed from testi(s) ‘witness’ and ficus ‘making’. Testis comes from the Indo-European root trei- ‘three’, with the sense of a ‘third person standing by (as a witness) ’.There is a popular notion which suggests that Latin testis ‘witness’ is related to testis ‘testicle’, by the idea that a testicle ‘bears witness’ of virility. This has not been proven, and some believe that testis ‘testicle’ is actually related to Latin testa ‘pot, shell’."
In that same issue (dedicated to men "some I have known, some I have not, and all of them men who have had an influence on me") I talked about the mysterious Ethan Wiley, with whom I attended UCLA and who went on to direct several feature films before apparently dropping out of sight. I wrote "If I can figure out a way to connect to him, I just know he'll have an interesting story to tell. In the meantime, remember his name..."
Or, to make things easier, just go to EthanWiley.com. Turns out that my old friend is still kicking around and caught up in many interesting projects. In addition to the aforementioned films, Ethan has been involved in interactive media, photography, theater, and music, having just released a CD of "newgrass" music titled Take A Stand, with fourteen original compositions featuring mandocello and mandolin. Very cool!
As usual, all definitions have been liberated from Dictionary.com. This week's words all have to do with journalism:
edition\e*di"tion\, n.; 1. A literary work edited and published, as by a certain editor or in a certain manner; 2. The whole number of copies of a work printed and published at one time. [from the Latin editus, p. p. of edere, to give out, put forth, publish; e out + dare to give. The word edit is often cited as an example of back-formation. In other words, edit is not the source of editor, as dive is of diver, the expected derivational pattern; rather, the reverse is the case. Edit in the sense "to prepare for publication," first recorded in 1793, comes from editor, first recorded in 1712 in the sense "one who edits." There is more to the story, however. Edit also comes partly from the French word éditer, "to publish, edit," first recorded in 1784. In the case of edit, two processes, borrowing and back-formation, occurred either independently or together, perhaps one person originally taking edit from French, another from editor, and yet a third from both.]
reporter\re*port"er\ n. one who reports. [from Latin reportre, re- + portre, to carry back]
copy\cop"y\, n.pl.; 1. material, such as a manuscript, that is to be set in type. [from Latin copia, plenty, abundance, from which we also get copious. Thus, when you have a copy of something, you are richer than you wwere before by at least one.]
type\type\, v.t.; 1. to write with a typewriter; 2. to represent by a type, model, or symbol beforehand, to prefigure. [from Late Latin typus, type, from Greek tupos, impression. It properly means a model or pattern or mould into which clay or wax was pressed, that it might take the figure or exact shape of the mould. The word "type" is generally used to denote a resemblance between something present and something future, which is called the "antitype."]
Fourth Estate n 1: newspaper writers and photographers 2: newspapers and magazines collectively ["The three estates of our own realm are the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons; popularly speaking, the public press is termed the fourth estate." Cobham Brewer 1810-1897, Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.]
A web writer named "Kaz" keeps a very interesting site called The Site of the Sentient. Nah, I don't know what it means either, but it's a great title and full of interesting essays. He writes "I hope to eventually have a mention, on this site, regarding each topic about which I have something worth saying. Since I'm opinionated, that means this site may eventually contain the sum of human knowledge." His politics are more libertarian than my own, but he has interesting things to say on The Death Penalty, the Embargo against Cuba, Intellectual Property, and other controversial topics. Go visit Kaz at http://www.siteofthesentient.com.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans are possessed of two great qualities — a sense of humor and a sense of proportion." — Franklin Roosevelt
All Contents (except the stuff I stole) Copyright © 2001 S.M.
McCord.
Redistribution allowed, provided you cite http://www.semitrue.com.