The Bottom Line: Expressions of Opinion

Charles V. Hughes (July 23) accuses Congressman George Miller of two "deceptions". But Hughes fails to make it clear exactly how the first of these constitutes a deception, and whether or not the second is a lie depends on how you look at it.

Hughes' first complaint seems to revolve around the facts that (a) Miller sends out bulk mail to constituents by ... bulk mail, and that (b) Miller is not out of pocket for such mailings because of the franking privilege that Congress voted itself a couple of centuries back. I can only say to this: "And your point is...?"

Hughes then complains that Miller's discussion of Republican Medicare "cuts" is deceptive because, in fact, the Republicans are increasing Medicare funding by 47% over the next seven years, an annual increase of 5.7% (Hughes quotes a figure of 6.5% per annum, but this appears to be the result of faulty arithmetic on his part). The problem, of course, comes from the fact that Republicans see government programs in terms of current dollars being expended on them, while Democrats see them in terms of services provided by the programs. In the case of Medicare, when you factor in relatively optimistic figures for annual basic inflation, excess inflation for medical services, population growth and demographic shifts (the "aging" of America), you find that a growth in spending of 47% over seven years means either that certain people now qualified for the program will have to be excluded, or else that services will have to be reduced for everybody. So ultimately Hughes' view that the program is being expanded is, in Republican dollar terms, absolutely correct, while Miller's point that the program is being cut back is, from a Democrat service viewpoint, also quite correct. No deception involved. Which viewpoint the voter chooses to adopt in November is, of course, a matter of personal preference.

One of the most useful attributes of the internet is that it allows the user to go directly to the source rather than being forced to base their own opinions on someone else's. This was why I was rather astonished to find, in Gavin Edwards' otherwise interesting and insightful article on planned languages (Wired, Aug. 1996), not a single reference to a mailing list, newsgroup or Web site from which the reader could actually learn something about these languages.

In his vitriolic distaste for "liberals," with particular reference to Molly Ivins, Harold Barrett (Sep. 1) plumbs the depths of the absurd.

Barrett explicitly parrots Ralph Bowman's complaints that U.S. soldiers "are used for unconstitutional United Nations world purposes". Our armed forces are rarely used in U.N. operations, except for logistical support (e.g. flying Irish troops into Katanga and the Lebanon); the tiny U.S. contingent in the bored and boring U.N. peacekeeping operation in Macedonia is unusual, not standard. Far more commonly, the United States uses the United Nations as an arm of U.S. foreign policy, convincing the U.N. to lend its imprimatur to U.S. military operations (Korea, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti) after Washington has already decided unilaterally to take military action.

Oh, and by the way, no purposes for which the U.S. military may be used are "unconstitutional"; the Constitution defines the summit of the military's command structure, but not its momentary tactical and strategic goals. Even assignment of U.S. military forces to a foreign command, a "bete noir" of some modern "conservatives", is perfectly legal, since nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the Commander-in-Chief may not delegate authority to individuals, even non-citizens, outside his normal subordinate chain of command. The principle is historically well established, going back to Lafayette and including the assignment of U.S. troops to British command during the 1918 anti- Bolshevik Murmansk incursion.

Even more absurd, Barrett charges that "the language in the Constitution will be changed from the English". The Constitution, as an authoritative document, is a sheaf of paper kept in a helium- filled glass case in Washington D.C. It was written in English, and changing its language would be an act not of politics but of magic. And, since all liberal as well as conservative lawmakers in Washington are English-speaking, it seems unlikely that any closet wizard in the government would even want to change the language in which the Constitution was written, though some might yearn for changes in content.

Ron Slade (Sep. 5) defends the action of Boy Scout leaders in Yosemite National Park who killed a young bear by stoning it. I don't want to throw my own stones at the perpetrators -- it was dark, and the bear's death appears to have been an unintended accident, as Slade suggests -- but Slade, after stating that the Times' article on the death (Aug. 17) "was written by someone whose closest encounter with a bear has been National Geographic documentaries," then proceeds to demonstrate by what he writes that he himself has experienced no closer encounter, at least with the Yosemite black bear.

Slade refers to the danger to "human lives", to the possibility of the cub's "mauling a child", to "the death of another child", and to the Scout leaders protecting the "lives and safety of the chilren". Perhaps Slade would care to comment on the number of times that Yosemite bears have actually harmed a human being in, let us say, the last half century? I have not heard of such an incident, though they have been known to turn convertibles into air-conditioned vehicles when they saw an egg left lying untended on the back seat. While it is never safe to assume that a wild animal weighing a quarter of a ton cannot harm you, the Yosemite black bears -- not to be confused with the grizzly bears of the northwest -- are among the most innocuous of such animals. There are domestic animals here in West County that are far more dangerous to life and limb.

Some years ago, while backpacking in the Yosemite back country, I encountered a mother bear and three cubs. One of the cubs, in an excess of zeal, made a beeline for my backpack while I was standing at some distance observing the other three bears. Not wanting to see my dinner disappear down a bear's gullet, I raced to interpose myself between cub and pack. The cub gave up, the mother and the other cubs simply stood there and watched with interest. Finally all four ambled amiably away. Very, very far from the deadly dangerous beasts that Slade purports to describe.

The presidential pardon controversy may be "way off base" as Pat Truly writes (Commentary, Oct. 26), but it is interesting in what it says about character, which seem to have become an important factor, if not in the presidential race, at least in the minds of some candidates.

The purpose of the presidential pardon power is to redress those miscarriages of justice which are otherwise irreparable in our legal system. Such miscarriages can happen to anybody -- you, me, Susan McDougal, whoever. The pardon power, despite occasional misuse by recent Republican presidents, remains important to us all, and by its nature no president has the ethical right to exclude any American from its scope.

That Bob Dole insists that President Clinton promise such an exlusion says something either about his character or about his understanding of our legal and judicial system. And that Bill Clinton refuses to make such a promise, despite the fact that it would be politically expedient for him to do so, and that to break such a promise later would cause him no political harm -- he will not, after all, ever be running for the presidency again -- says more about his character than four and a half years of "Slick Willie" rants ever could.

Por la rubrikestro pri kulturo.

Estimata sinjoro:

Pardonu, ke mi skribas al vi ne en la sveda lingvo, kiun mi tute ne regas, sed en Esperanto (angla versio sekvas jene* -- kaj tio elcxerpas mian propran lingvostokon...).

Mi hodiau^ trovis, en la reto, c^e la novaj^grupo soc.culture.esperanto, la jenan afis^on de sveda samideano, kiu rilatas al artikolo de s-ro Carsten JENSEN, elangligita kaj redaktita de s-ino Birgit MUNKHAMMAR. Mi esperas, ke vi trovos interesa mian respondon. Mi aludas c^efe al du punktoj entekstaj, kiujn mi signas jene: ()

<< Geestimataj,

En la sveda taggazeto "Dagens Nyheter" de hodiaux, 23 okt 96, mi legas artikolon de iu dano, Carsten Jensen, pri literaturo kaj tradukado. Interalie li skribas (mi proksimume elsvedigas):

"[...]

Dank' al la kolonia pasinteco de Britio anglaj patrinlingvanoj sentas sin hejme preskaux cxie ajn en la mondo (1), kaj dank' al la usonanoj la angla igxis ne nur la universala lingvo de la komerca mondo sed ankaux la Esperanto de l' espero kaj de l' sxangxigxo, lingvo por elmigrantoj kaj de suprenigxemuloj, por tiuj kiuj volas forrompi sin de sia nuna vivo al io pli bona.

[...]"

(Cxu la auxtoro, kiu en sia lingvo jam apudmetis la vortojn "Esperanto" kaj "espero", ja konsciis pri ilia interligo? Mi dubas!)

Kaj pli sube, ecx pli interese por ni, la teksto konkludas:

"[...]

Sed ekzistas vera universala lingvo. Estas la lingvo de la literaturo, malferma kontraux la mondo kaj kontraux la pasinteco. Tial ankaux neniam literaturo estos skribita en iu artefarite konstruita universala lingvo, cxu en Esperanto (2) aux cxu en la angla kiu estas disvastigita en la amaskomunikiloj. Literaturo plu skribigxos en la dana, hebrea, germana, franca, hispana, araba, cxina kaj centoj da aliaj lingvoj.

Kaj en la angla kompreneble, sed nur de anglaparolantoj.

Tial cxiam ekzistos tradukoj.

Carsten Jensen

La teksto estis prezentata kiel [prelego?] cxe la librofoiro en Frankfurto. Redaktis kaj elangligis Birgit Munkhammar" >>

(1) Pri la g^enerala disvastig^inteco de la angla mi ne volas komenti, sed pri la tutmonda enhejma sento de anglalingvanoj mi ja povas respondi. Mi dum mia vivo vizitis plurajn landojn de la mondo, kaj se mi kelkloke sentis min enhejme, tio estis pli pro la g^enerala afableco de la tieanoj ol pri ia lingva kapablo de la koncernaj landanoj. Kiel AFS inters^ang^studento en Danio (1959) mi rimarkis tuj, ke la skandinavianoj estas ege gastamaj -- kaj multe malpli kapablaj pri la angla ol oni kutime supozas. En Francio (1970, 1971), dum entute 21 tagoj da restado tie, mi renkontis entute du homojn, kiuj kurag^is provi la anglan kun mi -- unu diris "thank you," la alia diris "le _money_ anglais"... En 1969, bedau^rinde mankas homoj en la au^tobusoj de Wiesbaden, Germanio, kapablaj -- au^ pretaj -- provi la anglan. Kiam mi vizitis Au^strion en la somero de 1970, tieaj anglalingvanoj vers^ajne c^iuj feriis alilande. Kaj kiam mi pasigis tri semajnojn en C^inio (1986), mi rimarkis, ke kvankam c^iu en tiu lando entuziasmis pri studado de la angla lingvo, ec^ ne unu persono montris, ke li entute lernis g^in. Por komuniki, mi devis dependi de la tieaj parolantoj de Esperanto...

Kiuj konstatoj, kompreneble, ne malakordas kun la fina konkludo de s-ro JENSEN...

(2) Rilate al la konstato de s-ro JENSEN pri literaturo en Esperanto, mi devas tamen kaj bedau^rinde malkonsenti. Estas tuta amaso da literaturo, kaj traduka kaj originala, verkita kaj legebla en la "artefarite konstruita lingvo" Esperanto, kiu ofte provizas al g^iaj uzantoj la kapablon aliri la kulturojn de la "malpli disvastig^intaj lingvoj". Eble svedlingvanoj, pli bone ol anglalingvanoj, komprenos mian miron, kiam mi, kiel universitatano, la unuan fojon tralegis la belegan tradukon far Stellan ENGHOLM de "Go"sta Berlings Saga" en Esperanto -- verkaj^o kiu, lau^ mia scio, lastfoje aperis en anglalingva traduko antau^ preskau^ cent jaroj kaj tute ne estas havebla en mia denaska lingvo.

S-ro JENSEN, s-ino MUNKHAMMAR, au^ kiu ajn povas frandi tiun esperantlingvan literaturon dank' al la miraklo de la Tut-Tera Teksaj^o, komence c^e http://www.webcom.com/~donh/literaturo.html. Kaj eble ankau^ interesus al ili la unua anglalingva traduko el la menciita romano de Selma LAGERLO"F post cent jaroj, la c^apitro/novelo "Kevenhu"ller", c^e http://www.webcom.com/~donh/don/stories/Kevenhuller.html -- disponigita al anglalingvanoj dank' al la miraklo de Esperanto!

----

*For the editor of the culture column.

Dear sir:

Please pardon me for writing to you not in Swedish, which I don't know at all, but in Esperanto (and in this English version -- which exhausts my entire stock of languages...).

Today I found on the internet, in the newsgroup soc.culture.esperanto, the following posting from a Swedish Esperantist. It relates to an article by Mr. Carsten Jensen, translated from English and edited by Mrs. Birgit MUNKHAMMAR. I hope that you will find my answer interesting. I allude mainly to two points in the text, which I indicate as follows: ()

<< (Quoted Esperanto message shown above) >>

(1) On how widespread the English language may be in general, I don't want to comment, but about the global at-home feeling of English speakers I can indeed reply. During my life I have visited several countries of the world, and if I have in some places felt myself at home, this was due more to the general kindness of the people living there than to any sort of linguistic ability on the part of those living in those countries. As an AFS exchange student in Denmark (1959) I immediately noticed that the Scandinavians are tremendously hospitable -- and much less competent speakers of English than is usually supposed. In France (1970, 1971), during a stay totalling some 21 days, I met a total of two people who dared try English with me -- one said "thank you," the other said "le _money_ anglais"... In 1969 there was an unfortunate lack of people on the buses in Wiesbaden, Germany, who could -- or would -- try English. When I visited Austria in the summer of 1970, local English-speakers were apparently all on vacation in other countries. And when I spent three weeks in China (1986), I noticed that although everybody in that nation was enthusiastic about studying English, not one person showed that he had fully learned it. To communicate I had to depend upon the local speakers of Esperanto...

Which observations do not, of course, necessarily disagree with Mr. Jensen's final conclusion...

(2) With respect to Mr. Jensen's observation about literature in Esperanto, I must, however and with regret, disagree. There is a large quantity of literature, both translated and original, written and available in the "artificially constructed language" Esperanto, which often provides its user with the ability to access the cultures of the "less widespread languages". Speakers of Swedish, better than those of English, may be able to understand my sense of wonder when I, as a university student, for the first time read the magnificent translation by Stellan Engholm of "Go"sta Berlings Saga" in Esperanto -- a work which, as far as I know, last appeared in an English translation almost a hundred years ago, and is not available at all in my native tongue.

Mr. Jensen, Mrs. Munkhammar or anyone at all can sample this Esperanto literature, thanks to the miracle of the World-Wide Web, starting from http://www.webcom.com/~donh/literaturo.html. And they may also be interested in the first English translation from the above-mentioned novel by Selma Lagerlo"f in a hundred years, the chapter (or short story) "Kevenhu"ller", at http://www.webcom.com/~donh/don/stories/Kevenhuller.html -- made available to English speakers thanks to the miracle of Esperanto!