Hi Edwina,

Folks who have been immersed in these issues for the last dozen years or more 
will probably have little trouble appreciating what I’m talking about on the 
U.S. public education and attack on science fronts. Count yourself blessed if 
the whole fracas has so far flown under your radar. 

Not that I would wish the grief on anyone who can live without it, but one 
place to survey the battle on the education front would be Diane Ravitch’s blog:

https://dianeravitch.net/

Regards,

Jon

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com

> On Feb 23, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Jon- you haven't identified what this 'war' consists of. 
> 
> For example - what does your reference to a war against science actually mean?
> 
> And you refer to 'the rain of abuse against university-educated teachers'. 
> What does this mean - and since when does a university education guarantee or 
> even lead to any sort of wisdom or just plain critical thinking abilities? 
> [And I'm a retired university professor].
> 
> Edwina
> 
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri 23/02/18 12:53 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
> 
> Michael, List, 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court is the Interpretive Branch of the U.S. Government 
> and the phenomenon we have witnessed since the turn of the millennium is 
> that powerful enough special interest groups can purchase their preferred 
> interpretations of a written constitution of laws and have their agenda 
> enforced -- if they have enough money and exert their power at the right 
> points of leverage in the Executive and Legislative Branches. That is a 
> distortion of the whole idea of a democratic republic but it is one U.S. 
> citizens will have to address while they still have the power to do so. 
> 
> So I see this issue as a symptom of a much more general dysfunction 
> of government that the mere issue of rights that may or may not be 
> guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. 
> 
> Here is one take on the Bigger Picture I wrote out a few years back: 
> 
> The Place Where Three Wars Meet 
> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/21/the-place-where-three-wars-meet/ 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Jon 
> 
> On 2/23/2018 4:46 AM, Michael Shapiro wrote: 
> > Dear Peirce-L subscribers, 
> > 
> > Gary Richmond was kind enough to post my recent Flash Mailing to the 
> > subscribers 
> > of my blog, languagelore.net, on this site, but I'm rerposting it here in 
> > order 
> > to give you the ful original, as follows: 
> > 
> > Once again we who are Americans are confronted by the atrocity of a mass 
> > shooting, this time in Parkland, Florida. Although some voices in the media 
> > have 
> > been raised already regarding the Second Amendment, I see the sole solution 
> > in 
> > the repeal by Congress of the Second Amendment––admittedly, something that 
> > seems 
> > far out of reach now but may eventually be achievable under powerful 
> > pressure 
> > from the voting public. 
> > 
> > Below (to remind you) is my blog post from 2012 that lays the groundwork 
> > for a 
> > repeal. It should be remembered that Justice Antonin Scalia, the chief 
> > malefactor in the Supreme Court decision, /District of Columbia v. Heller/, 
> > 554 
> > U.S. 570(2008), which last upheld the Second Amendment, is currently 
> > deceased 
> > and not likely to rise again! 
> > 
> > *Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment (December 24, 2012 
> > [from 
> > languagelore.net])* 
> > 
> > The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “A well 
> > regulated 
> > Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the 
> > people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun owners assert a 
> > right 
> > to own and use firearms on the basis of the main clause of the amendment. 
> > In the 
> > so-called Heller case, the United States Supreme Court has sustained their 
> > right, ignoring in 2007 the well-reasoned amicus brief filed by 
> > professional 
> > linguists that argued that the grammar of the amendment does not allow such 
> > an 
> > interpretation. Here is a summary (from Dennis Baron, “Guns and Grammar: 
> > the 
> > Linguistics of the Second Amendment” 
> > (http://www.english.illinois.edu%2F-people%2Ffaculty%2Fdebaron%2Fessays%2Fguns.pdf";
> >  
> > target="_blank">www.english.illinois.edu/-people/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf
> >  
> > <https://p.feedblitz.com/t3.asp?/754824/25483131/5984147_/www.english.illinois.edu/-people/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_campaign=Newsflash_2018-02-22_10%3a03%3a00&utm_content=754824>):
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > “In our amicus brief in the Heller case we attempted to demonstrate, 
> > 
> > 
> > • that the Second Amendment must be read in its entirety, and that 
> > its initial 
> > absolute functions as a subordinate adverbial that establishes a 
> > cause-and-effect 
> > connection with the amendment’s main clause; 
> > • that the vast preponderance of examples show that the phrase 
> > /bear arms/ refers specifically to carrying weapons in the context of a 
> > well-regulated militia; 
> > • that the word /militia /itself refers to a federally-authorized, 
> > collective fighting 
> > force, drawn only from the subgroup of citizens eligible for 
> > service in such a body; 
> > • and that as the linguistic evidence makes clear, the militia 
> > clause is inextricably bound to the right to bear arms clause. 
> > 18^th -century readers, grammarians, and lexicographers understood 
> > the Second Amendment in this way, and it is how linguists have understood 
> > it as 
> > well.” 
> > 
> > 
> > What is paramount in the correct interpretation is something Baron et al. 
> > do not 
> > discuss, namely the order of the two clauses. The participial first clause, 
> > even 
> > in 18^th -century English, could just as well have been placed second, in a 
> > familiar pattern that can be seen, for instance, in a sentence like: “There 
> > will 
> > be no swimming today at the recreation center, the pool being closed on 
> > Mondays.” Clearly, there is a cause-and-effect relation between the fact of 
> > no 
> > swimming and the particular day of the week, regardless of the placement of 
> > the 
> > two clauses vis-à-vis each other, but what is at stake here is a form of 
> > grammatical government that is best captured by their ORDER, which is to 
> > say 
> > their HIERARCHICAL relationship. The first clause occurs where it does 
> > because 
> > the writer/utterer deems it to be MORE IMPORTANT than the second clause. 
> > 
> > 
> > The same obtains in the element order of the Second Amendment. The word 
> > /militia/ of the first clause governs—is hierarchically superordinate 
> > to—the 
> > phrase /the right of the people to keep and bear arms/. The framers of the 
> > Constitution had the grammatical option to invert the two clauses but did 
> > not. 
> > The element order speaks for itself, rendering /militia/ the pragmatistic 
> > scope 
> > (i. e., in the Peircean sense of the philosophical doctrine of pragmatism) 
> > under 
> > which /right to keep and bear arms/ is restricted. 
> > 
> > MICHAEL SHAPIRO 
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to