Ellison and Korzybski? Or Ellison and Hayakawa?

Ellison’s easy enough to read. And a fun read, at that. A ‘no bullshit’ critique, and all essay length for easy digestion. I read it several times before it got ‘borrowed with extreme prejudice.’

Korzybski’s book (Science and Sanity) might be hard to find. Hayakawa’s stuff is still around, and still valid or acceptable theory at least–but it might seem a little stodgy/weird to younger readers. Chisholm would be impossible to find, so I assume you’d leave that name off the list–although Chisholm was my first exposure to general semantics, back when I was twelve–it’s a long story, and possibly boring, since I did NOT end that episode with an exciting sexual romp.

Perry

FOR IT, BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT
Theda Skocpol writes in …

I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government — and Bill Clinton — and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!
I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination — and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of “we’re not bitter” stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.

Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?

This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of “elitism”! (I won’t say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny — and it may not be long before the jokes start.

–Josh Marshall

First, the reporter shook the report in her hand as if it wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. As the more serious male voice read details of the report as if they might possibly be true, the editor interspersed clips of Michael Pancer discussing important points of the police report. As the version of events told by the police report concluded, they introduced Pancer as the man who would prove this report wrong.

If you read between the lines, you got that nobody in their right mind would ever believe what the police were saying. This type of subversive journalism must be encouraged. It has to be quite subtle to get past the censors. Pancer remarks that there is no real justification for the shooting itself, (other than the weak idea that Ms. Silva was trying to sidewipe officer Dickhead’s car in reverse.) But the report clearly states that she pulled up right next to his car and yelled really, really scary. Then she was belligerent! Working moms gone wild! Why did the officer first display his gun, before he displayed his badge? He admitted that in his report. Road rage encounters don’t have to end in gunfire. Let cooler heads prevail.

There is no way the Oceanside Police Department is goin to win this one. It’s too big. This is probably the biggest local scandal that we will ever see in our lifetimes.