The political religion of the nation

Law Day, U.S.A.

Raise your hand if you know when this is. Raise both hands if you know what this is!

All those with hands raised probably are some part of the legal profession! The existence of Law Day is part of U.S. public law, but is not widely known. According to Wikipedia it is often used as a "legal education tool."

May 1 was proclaimed Law Day, U.S.A., in 1958 by President Eisenhower. Three years later it became part of public code.

Did you know that? I hadn't. I saw a mention of Law Day a few days ago on Twitter. And then went in search of enlightenment.

According to the U.S. Code, Law Day is to be "a special day of celebration," for people of the country to express "appreciation of their liberties," to reaffirm their loyalty to the country, to rededicate themselves "to the ideals of equality and justice under law," and to cultivate "the respect for law that is so vital to the democratic way of life."

This year's theme for Law Day (chosen by the American Bar Association) honors the bicentennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln: "A Legacy of Liberty—Celebrating Lincoln's Bicentennial." And to borrow his own words, from the Gettysburg Address. "it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this": "Lincoln ... was the quintessential American lawyer-president." And he was passionate about how essential the law is to continued liberty.

"Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother ..... Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation ...."

How will you observe Law Day?

“Myth”: Fact or myth?

Mark Twain was right, as I’m sure he often was. “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” A word can be powerful. Just the right word can be much more powerful.

And just the “wrong” word can be quite powerful also.

But then, with some words, when it is right and when it is wrong is entirely a subjective thing. The writer of a letter to a certain magazine referred to “a myth of a Creator.” Presumably he considered “myth” to be the correct word to convey his own meaning. However, to many readers it was most definitely the wrong word. They fired back (letters to the editor, in following issue), protesting the use of a word that was — to them so obviously — inaccurate, incorrect, insulting, infuriating (can I think of some more “in-” words? ...) and in all ways wrong. They were steamed because they don’t just believe, they know that the existence of a Creator is fact, and most definitely not myth.

The magazine responded. Its founder took those objecting to task for being uptight: most civilizations and religions have and have had a “myth” concerning creation; so what’s the big deal with the wording in that earlier letter?

He’s missing the point that for those who wrote protesting, they have a sure and certain knowledge of a particular Creator. A truth. And obviously a truth can’t be a myth. For them, “myth” in this case was a powerfully wrong word. That’s what the big deal is.

I’m looking forward to the next issue, for the responses from those who will certainly not only take offense at the magazine’s support and defensive of that “wrong” word but also at having the magazine essentially tell them that they should cool it and not take their religion so seriously!

If almost the right word is a lightning bug and the right word is lightning...is the wrong word a lightning strike?

Don’t slap your readers!

Proofreading is essential,” a blog post by Brian Lawler at Premedia Trends on GraphicArtsOnline.com, was born from an experience similar to mine that had fueled my earlier post: distress at a potentially good book brought down by failure to have it edited and/or proofread.

Mr. Lawler speaks of grimacing at the typographical errors and blanching at a factual error. Yes, exactly, although I, with the book I was trying to read, was grimacing at the lack of editing and proofreading and blanching at “research” that went in the face of the (typeset, not handwritten) words on the source.

Mr. Lawler observes that “one of the most intriguing thoughts of good typography and good printing is that when it is done really well – people don’t notice.” Another “yes, exactly!” The same is true for good editing and proofreading, and for the same reason. People notice poor layout, errors, inconsistencies or poor grammar. Those things jolt the senses, and then it is the problems — the causes for the jolts — that are seen. Sometimes they practically slap you in the face. Painful. Good editing polishes out the causes for the potential jolts. Then the content, the information, the message can shine through as intended.

To quote again from Mr. Lawler: “hire a proofreader! As passionate as an author is about his subject, there is no substitute for the person with the red pen. This book needed one, and did not get proofread by a skillful editor, and that’s a shame.”

Another potentially good, and potentially recommendable, book bites the dust.

Does your spell check work?

While I've seen this poem before, I just ran across it recently. Don't know the author so if you do -- please post a comment below. The poem's always worth a LOL. Enjoy the gentle reminder that many words are spelled correctly but are the wrong word. Believe me, I have too many stories to mention.

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

A proofreader with a passion for Virginia ancestry.

I’d been looking forward to reading the short biography. Looking forward to learning about this person. So last night I finally read it. Well, I read about twenty pages, skimmed through the rest, and am very disappointed, because I still do not know very much about this man. Not because I skimmed so much but because at page twenty I had suddenly been hit with the indisputable fact that I was not going to be able to trust the author’s research and, hence, conclusions.* That realization certainly encouraged me to skim only, but my main motivation for not reading the book carefully was the quality—or more specifically, the lack thereof—of the writing.

The book was unorganized, repetitious (repeatedly!), frequently lacking in logic, employed too much passive voice (a little is almost inevitable, but this was too much), inconsistent, wordy, full of sloppy grammar, and greatly in need of proofreading (the sentence with the two verbs told me that). I don’t hold the author at fault for the problems mentioned in the last paragraph. I do, however, hold the author at fault for not getting the book edited and proofread. The author is a professor. Of English. Perhaps she felt that qualified her as a writer above a need for editing. But there really isn’t such a thing. Every author needs his/her work edited and/or proofread.

*In case you are interested in what was on page twenty that raised a red flag, not to mention the fireworks coming from me: The author had been providing information on the apparent ancestry of the subject and building an argument for a certain family connection based first on the family stories [hearsay] of one elderly lady and then on a colonial tax record, which according to the author said a certain thing. The combination of the hearsay evidence and what the official record supposedly said added up to genealogical information that was at least worth considering. But then I turned the page and there on page twenty was the image of the transcript of the tax record, which very clearly said something entirely different from what the author thought it said. What the author thought named two children of the taxpayer was actually giving the names of the two slaves the [free black] taxpayer owned.)