“I shouldn’t have to say this, but you’re not allowed to obstruct each other’s breathing.”

Do other dads have to say these kinds of things?

I get phone calls. This one was from a woman who was writing a book and needed some free editing advice. She probably thought: I need someone who knows about language. Maybe I should ask a linguist! And usually that would be a good idea, especially since linguists are generally knowledgeable people of sound understanding, and good to talk to. Unless it’s about a prescriptive grammar question, which makes us feel cranky.

Here’s the question: is this sentence okay?

The beginner in tatting can use this book to improve their technique.

My first thought was: Cheese it, lady, I’m a linguist, not an editor. You need the bowtie people over in English. We describe, not prescribe.

But I didn’t say that. I just explained that there are three schools of thought on the matter:

1) Some people don’t like that sentence because ‘beginner’ is singular and ‘their’ is plural. Shun those people.

2) Some people think the sentence is fine because it sounds fine. Or at least, it sounds better or less cumbersome than the alternatives of ‘he or she’ and so on. English doesn’t really have a good solution yet. This is why I’d like to fast-forward two hundred years to see what people finally decided to do. 3D real-time Google Maps walkthroughs? Feh. Just let me hear some English!

3) “Why don’t you just avoid the whole problem and rewrite the sentence?” I asked. Like this:

Beginners in tatting can use this book to improve their technique.

“Oh, I don’t want to rewrite anything,” she said. “It’s at the printer’s. But I was worried that someone would say it was wrong.”

After a moment, I said “If anyone gives you any flack about it, just tell them a linguist said it was okay.”

“Oh, thank you!” she said. She was happy, and I’d done my pro bono for the day.

Oh, and tatting is what you do when you make lace. There — that’s two.

Growing up with religion can really mess people up if done badly. Perhaps even if done well. But I’m feeling a bit positive today, so I want to ask a question: In what way did your religious upbringing make you a better person? This is not to make excuses for a prior belief system, or to absolve it of responsibility for your messed-up-edness, but to recognise the good even in the maybe not-so-good.

I’ll start.

One of the things Mormons have to deal with is that they have very clear restrictions on their actions, and not everyone will respect that. So one of the things I had to do growing up was learn to be different. I learned how not to do whatever anyone suggested (e.g. smoking, drinking, or drugs), not to need other people’s approval so much, and stand apart a little because of my value system. I think that’s important to do, no matter what your value system is.

Okay, so instead of needing people’s approval, I was trying for the approval of a non-existent being, but I didn’t know that at the time.

How about you?

We’re pleased here at Good Reason to have been granted an exclusive interview with the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard. We were escorted to the Prime Minister’s office, where Mr Howard emerged from what appeared to be a giant closet.

Good Reason: Mr Howard, it’s an honour to meet with you.

John Howard: No worries, mate.

Good Reason: You’re responsible for Australia not singing on to the Kyoto Protocol. You even refused to meet with Al Gore when he was in the country last week, and you have no plans to see “An Inconvenient Truth“. Why not?

John Howard: I don’t take policy advice from films. Unless it’s movies like Mad Max and Gallipoli — great stuff!

Good Reason: But isn’t it important to find cleaner kinds of energy to meet Australia’s needs, instead of relying on oil?

John Howard: We’re looking at a range of solutions for Australia’s energy needs, like finding more oil, burning coal, and getting detainees to generate electricity by walking on treadmills. We’re also looking at pulling all that uranium out of the ground as part of our Global Nucular Energy Partnership with the USA.

Good Reason: Wait a minute — you just said ‘nucular’. There’s something funny about your voice.

John Howard: Nothin’ funny here, mate. I’m fair dinkum John Howard, all right. Kangaroos and that stuff.

Good Reason: Is that a John Howard mask? I thought your face looked more rubbery than usual.

John Howard (removing mask): Dag-nabbit, you caught me.

Good Reason: Hey, you’re not John Howard at all! You’re George W. Bush!

At this point John Howard bursts out of the closet.

The Real John Howard: Flamin’ oath, George! I keep telling you, it’s ‘nuclear’! And lose the Texas twang!

George W. Bush: Sorry there, John-Boy.

Good Reason: Do you often impersonate John Howard?

George W. Bush: Every once in a while. It’s the least I can do for all the times he’s impersonated me over the years.

John Howard: Yeah, like how about the time I ran on an anti-boat-people platform?

George W. Bush: You couldn’t have divided the electorate more effectively, John. Just like I told ya, huh? So effective, I decided to adopt it for my anti-immigrant campaign last year.

John Howard: I’m trying it out on Muslims now! Listen to this: There’s a small section of the Islamic population which is unwilling to integrate and I have said generally all migrants … they have to integrate.

George W. Bush: You forgot the most important part…

John Howard: Oh, yair. They want to kill us!

George W. Bush: That’s my Man of Steel.

Good Reason: Well, how can you even tell if they’re ‘integrated’?

John Howard: They speak English, and vote for me.

Good Reason: Isn’t this just a tactic to put public pressure on people who retain their ethnicity and language? I mean, you’re not going to punish Muslims who don’t ‘integrate’ by putting them in detention, are you?

John Howard: No, of course not.

George W. Bush: Yes.

John Howard: Yes.

Good Reason: What were you two doing in that closet anyway?

George W. Bush: Nothing.

John Howard: Nothing.

Pauline Hanson (emerging from closet): Nothing.

You’re the President of the United States on 11 September 2001. Time to give your speech to the nation. What do you say?

Admittedly, I’ve had five years to think about this. But I’d build my talk around something like this:

“Terrorism only works when you’re afraid. The terrorists want you to be afraid. I want you to be brave.

“The terrorists would like nothing more than to see us throw away the freedoms that make us great. I want you to defend and live those freedoms.

“The terrorists want us to turn on each other and tear each other apart. I want all of us to stand united, as Americans.

“We can beat this thing, but we’re going to beat it by using the best that’s in us, and not the worst.”

Everyone should be kicking up a stink about this.

Call Seven right now and demand they pull ‘Path to 9/11’. (I phoned earlier tonight.)

Why bother? The show is riddled with factual errors, not the least of which is that it deflects blame from Bush, and blames the Clinton Administration for the attacks. More here.

In the USA, this is being fought out vigourously, but here in Australia, it’s flying under the radar. Don’t let it.

I just knew BYU wasn’t going to be happy about one of its faculty taking after the US Government.

Steven Jones is a physics professor at the Y, and he’s been active in promoting the idea that 9/11 was sabotage. In this view, the Bush Administration (at the very best) knew of the attacks beforehand, but did nothing to stop them because it fit into their take-over-the-Middle-East agenda. Or, at the very worst, explosives were planted by Dick Cheney and Osama bin Laden personally.

Accordingly, BYU has put the Perfesser (who also does work in ‘cold fusion’; ’nuff said) on ‘paid leave‘ while they decide what to do wth him.

Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called “9/11 truth movement” that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

BYU will conduct an official review of Jones’ actions before determining a course of action, university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said. Such a review is rare for a professor with “continuing status” at BYU, where Jones has taught since 1985.

My thoughts are kind of tangled about this, but I’ll put them down in no particular order.

Number 1. Is the circle-jerk of neo-cons that Bush listens to evil enough to try this kind of thing? Without question. Do I think they had any intention of doing this? No. Remember, this is the gang that lost the war in Iraq, lost the War on Terror, and got absolutely everything wrong. How would they have the capability to arrange airlines, explosives, and controlled demolitions with such split-second precision?

Number 2. Religious people (say, the kind that teach at BYU) aren’t the best critical thinkers. Oh, they may know about it, but they consistently fail to apply it to the tender parts of the mind, the parts that hold cherished beliefs. Utah has a lot of followers, but there are a lot of conspiracy theorists among the rest of them. It could be a manifestation of the ‘persecuted believer’ syndrome, which Latter-day Saints hone every Sunday.

Number 3. BYU hates to be the focus of national attention, and Dr Jones has unwisely forced this situation by going public. The University tends to act badly in these situations — just look at Cecilia Konchar Farr, fired for her feminism 10 years ago. Oh, hell, look at the whole page. This is a university that holds a deep suspicion of its faculty and what they might do to its image. Back to the Deseret News story:

BYU does not grant tenure, generally regarded as a permanent position, to professors. However, it does give continuing status to professors found worthy after six years on campus.

‘Worthy’ is the newspaper’s word, but it’s well-chosen for its religious connotations.

“Continuing status,” Jenkins said, “grants the expectation that faculty members will have continuing employment at the university, although it is not a guarantee. They still need to meet satisfactory performance levels for scholarship, citizenship and teaching.”

That ‘citizenship’ is the kicker. You’re a bad citizen if you don’t play ball. Jones didn’t play ball.

Number 4. What’s wrong with Jones’ assertions? The fact that the ‘demolition theory’ amounts to a ‘conspiracy theory’ is a really bad sign. The other bad sign is that they fall back on paucity of imagination. Here’s how that one looks: ‘There was no way that could have happened without my theory being true.’
Religious believers say ‘There was no way I could have passed that test on my own; it must have been God.’
Creationists say ‘There was no way things could have evolved by pure chance like they have; my theory must be true.’
And Dr Jones and co. say ‘There was no way the towers could have fallen like that; our theory must be right.’
Well, it’s an amazing world, and if you can’t think of a way, you might not be trying hard enough. Paucity of imagination is a classic blunder.

On the other hand, I’m happy to have him present his ideas to the scientific community for airing. That’s the way it works. Someone presents a view, others present a rebuttal. Which the NIST has done. Since I lack the necessary knowledge of physics and metallurgy, I’ll read what I can and wait for a consensus to form among the scientific community. It’s not perfect, but in the long-term, it’s a good way to go.

I think it’ll come down on the side of the NIST, though, and I can tell that because, well, I gained psychic powers from the experiments the CIA performed on me. But I’ve said too much.

Out: ‘torture’.
In: ‘alternative interrogation methods‘.

Though Bush said the United States never tortures suspects, “alternative” interrogation methods are used to glean information from them. These procedures “were tough, and they were safe and lawful and necessary,” he said.

I think we can get more mileage out of this term.

The new movie ‘Path to 9/11‘ isn’t pure fiction; it’s ‘alternative history’.

Religion and new-age fakeism can be ‘alternative science’.

The Bush team doesn’t tell lies; they’re offering an ‘alternative reality’.

Remember how much you enjoyed ‘alternative music’ back in the 90s? You were listening to Better Than Ezra while everyone else was doing the Macarena, but who’s laughing now? This’ll be just like that. You’ll love it.

After all, what does it matter if it’s true, as long as you’re happy?