Love

For a respite from the politics and policy conflicts, the shouting and the shooting, the hostility and hate speech, I thought a word about love might be welcome.

I was inspired to write this blog post by a recent podcast from my favorite electronic stand-in minister, Krista Tippitt ("Speaking of Faith," "On Being"). Her government and media experience, writing, broadcasting and education (including a Masters in Divinity from Yale) has led to many prestigious awards.

The subject of her August 2 program/podcast was, "The True Hard Work of Love and Relationships." [Photo credit: David C. Wong/Flickr.]

Her guest was Alain de Botton, the founder and chairman of The School of Life. His books include Religion for Atheists, How Proust Can Change Your Life, and the novel The Course of Love. (Given his lifetime professional focus on love, he could have appropriately used the title of James Gould Cozzens' book, By Love Possessed.) But most relevant for his conversation with Ms. Tippitt is his article, "Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person," New York Times, May 28, 2016.

When Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein wrote "Hello Young Lovers" that they began the song with a reference to the troubles that may accompany love -- a kind of "good luck with that, kids" -- suggests they knew of what they wrote:

Hello young lovers whoever you are
I hope your troubles are few
All my good wishes go with you tonight
I've been in love like you

Unfamiliar? Like to hear it? Frank Sinatra will sing it for you HERE

Here are the lyrics for another song associated with Sinatra called "Love and Marriage" ("Love and marriage/Go together like a horse and carriage").

What Alain de Botton wishes to remind us is that love is not the only thing that goes with marriage, and that young lovers' troubles can easily mount up well beyond "a few." In his article, "Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person," New York Times, May 28, 2016, he writes:

We marry the wrong person ... because we have a bewildering array of problems that emerge when we try to get close to others. We seem normal only to those who don’t know us very well. In a wiser, more self-aware society than our own, a standard question on any early dinner date would be: “And how are you crazy?”

Perhaps we have a latent tendency to get furious when someone disagrees with us or can relax only when we are working .... The problem is that before marriage, we rarely delve into our complexities. Whenever casual relationships threaten to reveal our flaws, we blame our partners and call it a day. ... One of the privileges of being on our own is therefore the sincere impression that we are really quite easy to live with.

Our partners are no more self-aware. ... We look at their photos, we meet their college friends. All this contributes to a sense that we’ve done our homework. We haven’t. Marriage ends up as a hopeful, generous, infinitely kind gamble taken by two people who don’t know yet who they are or who the other might be, binding themselves to a future they cannot conceive of and have carefully avoided investigating.

So expressed, it is an analysis consistent with that of Wendell Johnson in the first chapter of his general semantics book, People in Quandaries: "Verbal Cocoons." He describes what he calls "the IFD disease." Our "ideals" (the "I") are unrealistically high. They can be high because (1) they are mathematically exceedingly unlikely to be attained (e.g., the junior high basketball player who aspires to play for an NBA team), (2) they are so highly valued (e.g., a young woman whose all-important single goal is to be chosen homecoming queen), or (3) goals can also be unrealistic if they are so totally devoid of a metric that it will always be impossible to know whether or not they've ever been attained (e.g., the young college student whose goal is to be "wealthy," "successful," or "popular"). When these goals aren't attained "frustration" (the "F") sets in. And repeated frustration can ultimately produce "demoralization" (the "D").

As Alain de Botton put it to Krista Tippitt, "Every 'fall into love' involves the triumph of hope over knowledge. ... Love is a painful, poignant, touching attempt by two flawed individuals to try and meet each others' needs in situations of gross uncertainty and ignorance about who they are and who the other person is."

In other words, "falling in love," and "being in love" during the first weeks or months of a romance, days when that is the major focus of one's thoughts and emotions, is the easy part. The challenge comes when we need to know ourselves, and others, well enough to acknowledge that "nobody's perfect," that to be human is to have flaws (even and especially our own). There is no flawless, ideal-in-every-way partner out there. The vaccine for avoiding the IFD disease, and for "staying in love," is to live with that reality.

Many to most middle aged folks either figure this out for themselves or simply live with the frustration. But if you happen to be one of those "young lovers," or wish to be, and have read this far, I don't just "hope your troubles are few." What I hope as you think about what you've read (plus maybe some of the links), and apply it in your own way, that you will become as capable of "staying in love" as "falling in love."
# # #

Measuring a Lawyer's Success

May 22, 2012, 10:55 a.m.

What It Means to be a Lawyer
Too many to credit have, over the years, noted the distinction between "data," "information," "knowledge," and "wisdom." (If it's new to you, and you're curious, here's a place to start: "DIKW," Wikipedia.org.)

We hope our students can make those leaps to knowledge. Many do. And rarely you even come to know one who makes it all the way to wisdom. One such was a former law student of mine, Van Everett, chosen by his classmates to speak for them at their commencement ceremony the afternoon of May 11 in the Iowa Memorial Union ballroom.

Van exchanged his usual Superman tee shirt for a suit and tie for the occasion, and chose to speak about "success." Given my father's, and my, writing about the problems words like "success" can create (Dad called some of them the "IFD disease"), a commencement address on the subject would normally not be something I'd choose to reproduce. See Wendell Johnson, People in Quandaries, ch. 1 ("Verbal Cocoons") (1946); Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know? An Antidote for the Language That Does Our Thinking for Us (2009), and Nicholas Johnson, Test Pattern for Living (1972). This one is different.

Not all lawyers are paragons of virtue and compassion. Moreover, by the time trials come around most of the "win-win" solutions to human problems have been explored and rejected by the parties. Roughly half are going to come away at least disappointed, if not downright angry. Those who lose tend to be more prone to blame their "incompetent" lawyer than the lack of justice in their own position.

How many other businesses' public relations could withstand these odds -- if half of all restaurant patrons suffered food poisoning, or half of a motel's guests would suffer bedbug bites every night?

In fact, there's a lot more of going above and beyond, of compassionate energy, a lot more free (pro bono) legal service, than the profession is given credit for. It's true that the practice of law has become much more of a business, an industry, than it was 50, not to mention 200, years ago. But it's still there, and Van Everett has illustrated why.

The legendary trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow (1857-1938), writes in his autobiography that "The most important case I had in Ohio was an action of replevin for a harness worth fifteen dollars." See Michael Hannon, "Clarence Darrow State & Federal Cases," University of Minnesota Law Library ("Darrow’s client, James Brockway, was a boy who received a harness worth $15 for attending a wealthy man who was a habitual drunkard and was ill. The man failed to pay for the harness and the creditor wanted it back. . . . Darrow received five dollars from his client for the first trial, but the litigation went through two trials and three appellate court decisions over seven years before it ended. Darrow’s client was unable to pay more than the initial five dollars so Darrow worked for free and paid the necessary expenses throughout the long legal process.").

The pro bono practice of my old firm, Covington & Burling, in Washington, D.C., is consistently ranked among the top three of all the law firms in the country by The American Lawyer magazine. It devotes hundreds of thousands of dollars (probably much more), and a Web page to what they do and how they do it and what they've accomplished for these clients. This is obviously a part of the firm's law practice that is valued by the partners and associates and something of which they are rightfully proud.

For an example of such altruistic compassion reaching even into the animal kingdom, I'm reminded of the comment of a law school faculty colleague the other day. Mind you this is a brilliant lawyer, an accomplished scholar, beloved by students and research assistants, respected by colleagues, an increasingly skilled administrator. I commented within his earshot to someone else about how he had crawled into a sewer to save a half-dozen young ducklings recently. He turned and said, "You know, I think that's the thing I'm proudest of that I've done around here." He can't have been totally serious, but I know him well enough to know that he was at least partially so. In short, in addition to his many other accomplishments he is able to compare and balance the worth of an additional duckling's life against the worth of an additional law review article on his resume.

All of which is a lead in to Van's commencement speech. Here's a quote, followed by the full text -- additional evidence that there are lawyers, even lawyers with over $100,000 in student loan debt, who value some things more than a $160,000 starting job on Wall Street, a courthouse win, or a year-end bonus. (Although I have Mr. Everett's permission to reproduce his text, I have not yet sought, and do not have, the permission of the fellow student about whom he speaks -- a former research assistant of mine -- and so her name has been deleted from the text.)

The pressure to strive in the workplace is tremendous, just as it was to get good grades here at law school, and under that pressure, sometimes all else is forgotten. . . . I just hope that somewhere down the road, if you’re struggling to achieve the more tangible form of success, if you’re having a hard time finding a job, or getting a raise, or making partner at a firm, I hope you’ll remember . . . the difference you’ve made in someone’s life, and the everlasting pride that comes with that kind of success.
-- Van Everett

Success

Van Everett
University of Iowa College of Law Commencement
May 11, 2012
Iowa City, Iowa
When I woke up this morning, I felt different. I felt an emotion that I didn’t quite recognize. I knew I’d experienced it before, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on exactly what it was. I felt like I should be singing, or dancing, or some combination of the two. And then I suddenly realized what it was. It was joy - pure, unencumbered joy. Not the kind of qualified joy that we’ve all become used to settling for while in law school. Not the kind of joy where you have to check your watch and say, “Okay, I can afford to be happy for the next two hours, then it’ll be time to study for the next final.” No, this was pure, unlimited elation. It took me so long to recognize this emotion, because it had been at least three years since I last experienced it. For all the friends and family that are here today, your graduates can confirm with you later that that joke is funny because it’s mostly true.

Additionally, to all the friends and family that are here with us to celebrate this joyous occasion, I would just like to say that, if you don’t like my speech, feel free to direct any complaints or criticisms to the graduate you’re here to support. They’re the ones that voted me up here, so they’re the ones you should hold responsible for the grave mistake they’ve made.

I’ll be honest with all of you, I still don’t truly understand the purpose of this speech. I don’t really know what wisdom or sage advice I can offer to all of you, when I’m in the same position as all of you. It’s not as though I have any kind of real world experience that would qualify me to offer any of you any advice. So with that in mind, I have a very modest goal for this speech, one I’ll return to in a moment.

I want to talk about the idea of success, and what it means to be successful. It seems like a pretty relevant topic, since it’s something we’ll all be striving for in our upcoming careers. As I was preparing for this speech, and pondering what I was going to say about this concept of success, I started to think about what I consider to be my greatest success here at law school, or my proudest achievement. I thought immediately of my role on our intramural flag football team, the Hung Jurors. The team made it to the Championship game of the Law Bowl all three years we were here, bringing home a championship in our second year. To quote widely respected football mind and great Marshawn Lynch, our play on the field could only be described as “Beast Mode.” While I am very proud of the team’s achievements, I have to say that they aren’t my proudest moments in law school.

Next, I thought of my role on some slightly more academic teams that I had the great privilege of being a part during my time here. I was very blessed to be on three different advocacy teams that finished in the top eight in the nation in their respective competitions. Those three top eight finishes were the highest finishes our law school has ever had in each of the three individual tournaments. Of course, the most important word I’ve mentioned in discussing these accomplishments is “team.” All three national runs were the result of team efforts through and through, and I’d be remiss at this point if I didn’t recognize my comrades at arms on each of these teams. In our second year, I was on a trial advocacy team that finished second in the nation at the AAJ competition. We were coached by two Cedar Rapids attorneys named Mark Zaiger and Megan Dimitt, and my teammates were John Lande and Meghan Corbin, both of whom graduated last year, and last but most certainly not least, Tyler Buller.

In our third year, Tyler and I teamed up again to finish in a four way tie for fifth in the nation at the National Moot Court Competition. Professor Gail Brashers-Krug and former Justice David Baker coached us, and we received invaluable moral and logistical support from another student Kevin O’Neill.

Finally, I was on trademark moot court team finished third in the nation at the Saul Lefkowitz Trademark Moot Court Competition. We were coached by Professor Christina Bohannan, my teammates were Alexandria Christian, Amy Hein, and Brian Kearns. We also received invaluable support from another student, Katherine Ross, who offered her advice, expertise, moral support, friendship, and the most inspiring rendition of the song The Final Countdown at a moment’s notice that I’ve ever heard. I feel very blessed to have been on each and every one of these teams, and to have worked with each and every one of my coaches and teammates, and I’m very proud of the success that each and every one of these teams experienced as a result of our hard work. But none of them is my proudest moment in law school.

My proudest moment happened in the second semester of our first year. Unfortunately, it resulted from a tragic event. A good friend lost her aunt, a relative that she was very close with. She was telling me about it, and told me that she would be going home to Chicago for the funeral for at least half of a week, if not an entire week. She was obviously very upset and stressed as she was telling me all this, and without really thinking about it, I offered to go back to Chicago with her for the funeral. I vividly remember that at the moment I said that, her eyes lit up and for the briefest of moments I could tell that the stress of the situation had left her. She told me that she would love for me to come, but continually told me that I shouldn’t feel obligated to. I knew she would never ask me to miss a week of class, and have to make up a week’s worth of reading and lectures, but I could also tell that she would really appreciate it if I came.

Through a series of uninteresting events over that weekend, she ended up leaving at the last minute without me. We were texting each other after she got home to Chicago that day, and I told her that if she still wanted me to come, I could catch a ride down to the train station in Mount Pleasant and ride over the next day. Again, she didn’t want to ask me to come, but told that if I wanted to she’d really appreciate it. Before texting her back, I remember briefly thinking to myself that maybe I shouldn’t go, that it would be much more convenient for me to not miss an entire week of class and not have to get a train ticket and a ride to the train station. I came very close to giving into that fleeting thought, and staying in Iowa City, but just as suddenly, I talked myself out of it. I told myself that some things are just more important than school or grades, and that this was one of those things. I had one of my roommates drive me to the train station the next day, and took the first train to Chicago.

While I was in Chicago, I honestly didn’t do all that much. In the days leading up to the wake and funeral, she and I just hung out, went to coffee shops and tried unsuccessfully to do all the reading we were missing. I met all her friends and family from back home. During the wake I was little more than a glorified thumb-twiddler, making polite conversation to the family and friends that were there, most of whom didn’t really understand why I was there. But at the end of the week, she looked me right in the eyes and told me that it was the nicest thing anyone had ever done for her, and that she’d never forget it. I haven’t been prouder of myself since that moment. It was by far my proudest and most successful moment in my three years here at Iowa, and one the proudest and most successful moments of my entire life. For the first time in a great while I felt like I had really made a difference, like I had accomplished something real and lasting that grades or awards or jobs or promotions or money simply can’t measure up to.

Which is not to say that all those things I just mentioned aren’t worth aspiring to or achieving. They certainly are. But in my experience, pride over that type of tangible success fades as the years go by. The thrill of winning that big case or getting that great job will subside in time, just as my thrill of succeeding in those competitions has already begun to subside. But the pride you feel in yourself after you really make a difference in someone’s life lasts forever. And the thing is, I know that all of you sitting here in front of me know exactly what I’m talking about. If any of you had to trade places with me right now, each of you could tell a story similar to the one that I just told. We’ve been in school in rather close quarters for three years now, and I’ve seen, heard about, and been the recipient of countless acts of kindness just like the one I described. As far as I’m concerned, all of you sitting before me now are successful in the most important way you can be.

Unfortunately, in our society, this type of success is frequently overshadowed by the more tangible kind of success, such as making money or getting promotions. The pressure to strive in the workplace is tremendous, just as it was to get good grades here at law school, and under that pressure, sometimes all else is forgotten. Getting back to the modest goal for this speech that I mentioned earlier, I just hope that somewhere down the road, if you’re struggling to achieve the more tangible form of success, if you’re having a hard time finding a job, or getting a raise, or making partner at a firm, I hope you’ll remember these words, and remember all the lasting success you’ve already achieved. That you’ll remember the difference you’ve made in someone’s life, and the everlasting pride that comes with that kind of success. If just one of you remembers and finds comfort in these words somewhere down the road, I’ll feel like I’ve accomplished my modest goal for this speech.

I want to thank you all so much for being such great friends to me during our time here at Iowa. While these last three years have certainly been stressful, I really truly enjoyed my time here, and it’s thanks to all of you. As we go our separate ways, I hope you’ll all keep in touch. I wish you nothing but the best in all your future endeavors, and may the odds be ever in your favor. Thank you.

# # #
That is, also, what it means to be a lawyer.

Susan Boyle as General Semantics Lesson

April 20, 2009, 6:00 p.m.

What Are General Lessons From Susan Boyle Phenomenon?
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
With an estimated 100 million views of Susan Boyle's performance by this morning [April 20], up from 50 million total for 200 different videos as of Friday, as blogger Adam Ostrow put it, "Between Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites -- not to mention mainstream media -- the performance has been impossible to miss this week." "Susan Boyle Video 'May Be Top YouTube Hit,'" Sky News, April 20, 2009.

There are profound lessons from this story with implications for everything from our personal relationships to the "war on terrorism," "toxic assets," and our government's current weighing of the benefits and costs of starting yet a third war, this time in -- are you ready for this? -- Somalia. Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung, "Obama Team Mulls Aims Of Somali Extremists; Seeing Potential Terror Threat, Officials Debate Their Options," Washington Post, April 11, 2009, p. A1.

We'll get to those lessons in a minute. Meanwhile, if you were not among the 100 million, here's The Guardian's take on what all the fuss is about.

Is Susan Boyle ugly? Or are we? On Saturday night she stood on the stage in Britain's Got Talent; small and rather chubby, with a squashed face, unruly teeth and unkempt hair. She wore a gold lace dress . . .. Interviewed by Ant and Dec beforehand, she told them that she is unemployed, single, lives with a cat called Pebbles and has never been kissed. Susan then walked out to chatter, giggling, and a long and unpleasant wolf whistle.

Why are we so shocked when "ugly" women can do things, rather than sitting at home weeping and wishing they were somebody else? Men are allowed to be ugly and talented. . . . But a woman has to have the bright, empty beauty of a toy -- or get off the screen. We don't want to look at you. . . .

Simon Cowell, now buffed to the sheen of an ornamental pebble, asked this strange creature, this alien, how old she was. "I'm nearly 47," she said. Simon rolled his eyes until they threatened to roll out of his head, down the aisle and out into street. . . . The camera cut to the other male judge, Piers Morgan, who winced. . . . The audience's reaction was equally disgusting. They giggled with embarrassment, and when Susan said she wanted to be a professional singer, the camera spun to a young girl who . . . gave an "As if!" squeak and smirked. Amanda Holden, the female judge, . . . chose neutrality. And then Susan sang. She stood with her feet apart, like a Scottish Edith Piaf, and very slowly began to sing Les Miserables' I Dreamed A Dream. It was wonderful.

The judges were astonished. They gasped, they gaped, they clapped. They looked almost ashamed. I was briefly worried that Simon might stab himself with a pencil, and mutter, "Et tu, Piers, for we have wronged Susan in thinking that because she is a munter, she is entirely useless." How could they have misjudged her, they gesticulated. But how could they not? No makeup? Bad teeth? Funny hair? Is she insane, this sad little Scottish spinster, beloved only of Pebbles the Cat?

When Susan had finished singing, and Piers had finished gasping, he said . . . "When you stood there with that cheeky grin and said, 'I want to be like Elaine Paige', everyone was laughing at you. No one is laughing now." And it was over to Amanda Holden . . .. "I am so thrilled," said Amanda, "because I know that everybody was against you." "Everybody was against you," she said, as if Susan might have been hanged for her presumption. . . .

We see this all the time in popular culture. . . . This lust for homogeneity in female beauty means that when someone who doesn't resemble a diagram in a plastic surgeon's office steps up to the microphone, people fall about and treat us to despicable . . . gestures of amazement. . . .

But Susan Boyle will be the freakish exception that makes the rule. By raising this Susan up, we will forgive ourselves for grinding every other Susan into the dust. . . .

Tanya Gold, "It wasn't singer Susan Boyle who was ugly on Britain's Got Talent so much as our reaction to her," The Guardian, April 16, 2009.

See also, Jill Lawless, "Susan Boyle Video: Britain's Singing YouTube Sensation," Associated Press/Huffington Post, April 16, 2009 (with a link to the original video).

Of course, one of the lessons from this episode is obvious. It's just one more example of the way in which television perceives, and presents, women. There's a substantial literature on this subject: the impact of these male prejudices -- for they are almost always the judgments of men, and they certainly reflect prejudices -- upon the ways in which women are treated in the broader society. Look at some of those early TV shows from the 1950s sometime. If those portrayals of women were accurate what employer would ever offer them the same pay as a man? And, accurate or not, they certainly had their influence on employers' judgment. There simply were no (or at least very few) serious roles for women of any age, and virtually none for any beyond their late 30s in Hollywood's episodic television series and feature films -- until they became old enough to play amusing character actor roles.

Such progress as there has been in the years since is so noteworthy simply because it represents such a contrast with those early years. And as Tanya Gold writes, and as Susan Boyle's experience displayed, we still have a long way to go.

In addition to the impact on women, think of the stereotypes applied to those who wish to enter our universities, or our companies -- the law firm that will only hire from among Harvard and Yale graduates in the top 10% of their class -- or our personal company, as dates or spouses.

However significant these issues may be, for purposes of this blog entry they are but a sub-set of much larger issues.

Following World War II, those who were reflective about it, and who sought a world at peace, focused among other things on the absolute imperative that atomic weapons not be used again lest all life on earth be destroyed, and on the role of propaganda as used by Hitler. As I quoted Noam Chomsky last week as saying, "Take a look at Germany. In the 1920s, Germany was the absolute peak of Western civilization, in the arts and the sciences. It was regarded as a model of democracy and so on. I mean, ten years later, it was the depths of barbarism. . . ." Nicholas Johnson, "Can Economy Produce Americanized Hitler?" April 15, 2009.

How could this have happened? Why would a nation's population come to hate an entire sub-group of individuals? Because they'd been "carefully taught" -- as Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein spelled out in their 1949 musical, "South Pacific"

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

:



Why is it that the human species has been so seemingly successful in developing its material tools, through science, engineering and manufacturing, and yet seems to have such serious inter-personal problems -- up to and including war?

Among the directions taken by these post-War seekers of peace was the development of dozens of skills involving sophistication about language, skills and analyses that came to be called "general semantics" -- at least a part of which was an effort to apply "the language of science," or the "scientific method," to everyday life. We humans are unique amongst the other animals primarily as a result of our ability to create and manipulate symbols of many kinds. And yet, as one general semanticist put it, one of the results is that the human species seems to be the only animal species able to talk itself into difficulties that would not otherwise exist.

Why does propaganda work? What understandings and skills would we need to develop in order to combat its power? How could we use our language in ways that would create fewer problems for ourselves? To what extent is depression a consequence of the way we talk to ourselves about ourselves? (See "Verbal Cocoons" and the "IFD disease" in the book People in Quandaries, linked below.)

These are questions that have occurred, to some extent, to everyone from Rogers and Hammerstein, to Shakespeare, to Edward R. Murrow, to the creator of "Pogo," Walt Kelly.

Broadcasting's legendary Edward R. Murrow concluded his Peabody Award-winning "See It Now" episode regarding Senator Joseph McCarthy, "The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay . . . and whose fault is that? Not really his; he didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right, 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.'" "Edward R. Morrow," En*Cyclopedia, State Library of North Carolina; the quote is from Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene ii.

Walt Kelly, creator of the "Pogo" comic strip, is perhaps best remembered for his comparable line on a 1971 Earth Day poster: "we have met the enemy and he is us." "Pogo (comics)," Wikipedia.

This is not the time or place to be trying to "summarize" a semester-long course, or the body of literature that is thought of as "general semantics."

But Susan Boyle did inspire me to think about general semantics once again, and what it has to teach us about, among other things, the phenomenon she created and why. If she also inspires you to find out more about general semantics then my efforts with this blog entry will have been worthwhile.

If you're interested, here are a couple of Web sites with which to begin:

Wendell Johnson, People in Quandaries, Ch. 1, "Verbal Cocoons," (1946) ("Quandaries, then, are rather like verbal cocoons in which individuals elaborately encase themselves, and from which, under circumstances common in our time, they do not tend to hatch. The peculiar structure of these cocoons appears to be determined in great measure by the structure of . . . the language which we so unconsciously acquire and so unreflectively employ.").

Steve Stockdale, "General Semantics on the Internet," ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, March 22, 2000, and here on Steve Stockdale's "This Is Not That" Web site.

S.I. Hayakawa and Alan R. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action (5th ed. 1991).

Samples of some of Nicholas Johnson's writing about general semantics:

Nicholas Johnson, "Searching for the Right Word: The Semantics of Heterosexual Relationships," ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 6-15, Spring (March) 1979.

Nicholas Johnson, "General Semantics: The Next Generation," Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture, Institute of General Semantics, November 3, 1995, Institute of General Semantics, General Semantics Bulletin, No. 63, pp. 22-44, 1996.

Nicholas Johnson, "Governing America: 'What do you mean?' and 'How do you know?'" Address to a National Issues Forum Co-sponsored by the Grant Wood Area Education Agency, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, and the Kettering Foundation, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library Auditorium, West Branch, Iowa, April 3, 1997.

Nicholas Johnson, "Professor Yin Says 'No' to Bug Burgers," FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com, September 16, 2006.

Nicholas Johnson, "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Keynote Address, "The World in Quandaries: Celebrating Two 60th Anniversaries (People in Quandaries and the New York Society for General Semantics, and the 8th anniversary of the Media Ecology Association), Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006 (including: General Semantics: The Ultimate Interdisciplinary Tools; General Semantics as Verbal Peace Movement; War: From WWII, to Viet Nam, to Iraq; War: Military Control of Civilians and the Powell Doctrine; "War" on "Terrorism"; What We Can Do), ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 45-64, January 2007.

And, without links . . .

Nicholas Johnson, "Freedom, Fun and Fundamentals: Defining Digital Progress in a Democratic Society," ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, International Society for General Semantics, Vol. 51, No. 2, Summer (June 22), 1994, pp. 189-208.

Nicholas Johnson, "The Semantics of Computer Communications," ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 250-54, Fall 1988.

Nicholas Johnson Commentary on Iraq War and Terrorism Involves Application of General Semantics Principles Without Expressly Discussing Them

"Perspective on Military Murder and the Mission at Hand," (Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 2, 2006

"The Politics of Domestic Spying," (Guest Opinion, Daily Iowan, January 19, 2006)

"Lessons from Abu Ghraib" (Guest Opinion, Daily Iowan, May 11, 2004)

"War in Iraq: The Military Objections" (advanced text for presentation at the University of Iowa College of Law's "International Law Talks: War with Iraq," February 27, 2003)

"Ten Questions for Bush Before War" (Guest Opinion, Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003)

"Capitalists Can Help U.S. Avert War with Iraq" (op ed, Iowa City Press-Citizen, Sunday Insight, October 6, 2002

"Tell the Rest of the Story" (op ed, Iowa City Gazette, October 2, 2002)

"Between Iraq and a Hard Place" (op ed, Omaha World-Herald, August 13, 2002)

"Search for Better Response Than War: Don't Reward the Terrorists, But Understand Their Interests" (op ed, Des Moines Sunday Register, June 30, 2002)

"Rethinking Terrorism" (text of presentation at National Lawyers Guild Conference, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa March 2, 2002)
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #