Language - The Great Equalizer

[Robert Baratheon]

A progressive writer for Slate by the name of Matt Yglesias (formerly associated with the Center for American Progress, and apparently a big deal in that community) posted a statement to his Twitter account yesterday that I found interesting. Though I don’t follow Yglesias on Twitter and had not heard of him before, the post came to my attention when it was retweeted by a buffoonish progressive blogger I do follow for the sole purpose of publicly shaming him in what can be best analogized as a regular pheasant hunt on the grounds of my digital estate. Yglesias’s tweet, most likely written in response to the National Spelling Bee coverage, was as follows:

“English’s inordinately difficult spelling makes for entertaining contests, but it’s horrible for social mobility. Reform is needed.”

Presumably, Yglesias’s argument goes something like this: poor people don’t have the same opportunities to learn spelling as the other classes; therefore, English spelling rules function as barriers to social blending and must be overhauled.

Putting aside the obvious practical concerns surrounding such an action (philosopher kings don't concern themselves with such matters), Yglesias’s view of English as a top-down control mechanism – a tinker’s tool for producing desirable social outcomes – runs counter to what Hayekians might point to as the emergent nature of language. We don't know if Yglesias would recommend the creation of such a body, but there is no Central Authority that controls spelling or vocabulary for all of society. Language is, and has been for centuries, shaped by each one of us, through usage, every day. Literally anyone can invent a word or adopt a new spelling at any time, and if enough people use it, it becomes a part of our shared means of communication - a part of our culture and social norms.

It’s indicative of the core temperamental differences between libertarians and progressives that my take on spelling is the polar opposite of Yglesias’s. Whereas Yglesias sees spelling as a tool of oppression beating down the poor, I view it as a great equalizing opportunity *for anyone willing to put in the effort.* Spelling is nothing more than a system of rules and exceptions learned through experience, memorization, and practice. Unlike in the past, when books were true rarities affordable only by the elite, the entirety of the English language is now directly accessible to anyone with a library, book store, or computer. With a simple grammar book and a bit of practice, there is nothing preventing the poorest of the poor from learning to express themselves every bit as eloquently as the richest of the rich. Compare the written word to mansions, luxury cars, finely tailored clothing, and other social status symbols long beyond the grasp of all but the super wealthy. Or compare it to exclusionary factors not so easily changed, such as accent, mannerisms, or physical appearance. If language is a barrier for the lower classes, what a cheap and accessible barrier it is, and once you've climbed over that initial hurdle, nobody can rightly tell the prince from the pauper on the other side.

[ginny]

Totally agree. English is my third language, but it wasn't difficult to learn. A year after we moved here, I spoke better than most of the blue collar crowd in Charlestown. It's not that rules of grammar aren't easy to come by. What has always puzzled me is that there are poorer communities where proper linguistis is derided. Poor grammar seems to be the seam that holds the gang together.

On the other hand, there isn't a news broadcast where some twit anchor knows the different between subjet and object - who or whom. A couple of years ago I wrote a somewhat snippy email to Chicago Trib columnist Eric Zorn for messing up a paragraph - told him if he was a professional writer whom people paid money to read, he better up it a notch. Two days later, Zorn's column discusscced prissy people who had a bug up their butt regarding sticky rules of writing. This from a well-known columnist?

Aren't there proficiency tests students need to pass?

[syrakusos]

I just posted two articles on my blog about readability. I did not address spelling because it is rooted in deep history. Basically, the language was in flux when printing was invented. It is messy. But, the alternative might be scarier. The Jews have an old joke about Yiddish: What is the difference between a language and a dialect? Dialects do not have armies.

The King's English by Fowler & Fowler was an attempt - very popular for 30 years - to set standards for common, written English.

See, for example, The King's English by Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler (Oxford: Clarendon Press , 1906), which was published at the height of the British empire. But Rudyard Kipling was the first English language writer to be honored with the Nobel Prize in Literature (1907) and he was born in Mumbai.

http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2013/02/indian-english-totally-legend-like.html

Interestingly, the Fowler's excoriated Kipling for the Americanisms he introduced.

It is precisely the common crowd that pushes our language. It is why English is the universal second language on Earth, even though others might have been "better." Spanish is easy to spell and Spain's empire was earlier than England's and global - from the Caribbean to the Philippines. English democracy as a social norm allowed the entry of moccasin and mulligatawny, wickiup and bungalow, attic, widow's walk, and veranda. Curried succotash might not replace "Texas caviar." When I was a child, the only reason we ate pizza and spaghetti is because they were American foods. Try to find anything at any "Mexican" restaurant that does not have rice. (Something Spain did achieve: global cuisine - popular everywhere except Spain...)

Before American intellectuals dictate to the rest of the world how to spell (or speak or write), they should be consistently democratic, and encourage us to follow India. India has more native speakers of English than England has people. More Indians speak English at home than Americans speak English at home.

Any honourable advocacy for our linguistic centre should recognize the Huffington Post as a mere cantonment. After all, if we cannot know the consequences, then who would fardels bear?

[BaalChatzaf]

Totally agree. English is my third language, but it wasn't difficult to learn. A year after we moved here, I spoke better than most of the blue collar crowd in Charlestown. It's not that rules of grammar aren't easy to come by. What has always puzzled me is that there are poorer communities where proper linguistis is derided. Poor grammar seems to be the seam that holds the gang together.

On the other hand, there isn't a news broadcast where some twit anchor doesn't know the different between subjet and object - who or whom. A couple of years ago I wrote a somewhat snippy email to Chicago Trib columnist Eric Zorn for messing up a paragraph - told him if he was a professional writer whom people paid money to read, he better up it a notch. Two days later, Zorn's column discusscced prissy people who had a bug up their butt regarding sticky rules of writing. This from a well-known columnist?

Aren't there proficiency tests students need to pass?

What are your other two languages?

[ginny]

First French, then Deutch. German so resembles Yiddish that I get a kick out of your Yiddish postings. Tell myself that yeah, sure, I know Yiddish. Piece a cake.

[Robert Baratheon]

Michael - You raise a number of relevant points. Yglesias's followers quickly piled on with a good old-fashined bout of "We should be more like Finland/Spain/fill-in-the-blank." Besides the logical counterpoints that English has become an international language; is an incredibly rich language due to the sheer volume of its vocabulary; and doesn't suffer from the numerous idiosyncrasies of other languages (don't get me started on gendered nouns); what I found most disturbing was the characteristically paternalist progressive mindset Yglesias displays toward those he considers beneath him on the social pyramid. An implicit tenet of progressive ideology is that certain demographics require constant protection and guidance from their social superiors, just as serfs would from their noble lords.

What Yglesias is really saying, dressed up in typical PC leet speak, is that the poor are (for whatever socioeconomic reason) too ignorant or lazy to learn how to spell, so we should change the social fabric of our culture to create a "Harrison Bergeron" environment in which everyone can compete equally and effortlessly with everyone else. Everyone gets an "A" in this world, contingent upon nothing but their existence and participation.

A philosophically related initiative that has appeared in many blue states is the "ban the box" movement, where "the box" refers to what you check on an employment application to signify that you have or have not been convicted of a felony in recent years. According to the advocates, it isn't *fair* to those convicted of crimes (violent or otherwise) that employers be allowed to request this information and weigh it accordingly. So however relevant the fact that someone robbed a liquor store at gunpoint may be to, say, the owner of a liquor store seeking a responsible cashier for his business, the employer would be prohibited by law from even considering such information as part of the hiring process.

We can only speculate as to how Yglesias and his followers would treat an e-mailed resume riddled with egregious spelling and grammatical errors when hiring on behalf of their own organizations. If we are to take the argument seriously, considering such information would be tantamount to oppression and the more rational and moral course of action would be to pretend that such errors tell the reviewer absolutely nothing relevant about the applicant.

[BaalChatzaf]

First French, then Deutch. German so resembles Yiddish that I get a kick out of your Yiddish postings. Tell myself that yeah, sure, I know Yiddish. Piece a cake.

Interesting. Yiddish is transliterated using Hebrew letters.

[ginny]

Did I mean to say Hebrew?

[caroljane]

Michael - You raise a number of relevant points. Yglesias's followers quickly piled on with a good old-fashined bout of "We should be more like Finland/Spain/fill-in-the-blank." Besides the logical counterpoints that English has become an international language; is an incredibly rich language due to the sheer volume of its vocabulary; and doesn't suffer from the numerous idiosyncrasies of other languages (don't get me started on gendered nouns); what I found most disturbing was the characteristically paternalist progressive mindset Yglesias displays toward those he considers beneath him on the social pyramid. An implicit tenet of progressive ideology is that certain demographics require constant protection and guidance from their social superiors, just as serfs would from their noble lords.

What Yglesias is really saying, dressed up in typical PC leet speak, is that the poor are (for whatever socioeconomic reason) too ignorant or lazy to learn how to spell, so we should change the social fabric of our culture to create a "Harrison Bergeron" environment in which everyone can compete equally and effortlessly with everyone else. Everyone gets an "A" in this world, contingent upon nothing but their existence and participation.

A philosophically related initiative that has appeared in many blue states is the "ban the box" movement, where "the box" refers to what you check on an employment application to signify that you have or have not been convicted of a felony in recent years. According to the advocates, it isn't *fair* to those convicted of crimes (violent or otherwise) that employers be allowed to request this information and weigh it accordingly. So however relevant the fact that someone robbed a liquor store at gunpoint may be to, say, the owner of a liquor store seeking a responsible cashier for his business, the employer would be prohibited by law from even considering such information as part of the hiring process.

We can only speculate as to how Yglesias and his followers would treat an e-mailed resume riddled with egregious spelling and grammatical errors when hiring on behalf of their own organizations. If we are to take the argument seriously, considering such information would be tantamount to oppression and the more rational and moral course of action would be to pretend that such errors tell the reviewer absolutely nothing relevant about the applicant.

I'm a progressive and |I approve your message on this one, Lord Robert. Or is it |Prince?

[syrakusos]

First French, then Deutch. German so resembles Yiddish that I get a kick out of your Yiddish postings. Tell myself that yeah, sure, I know Yiddish. Piece a cake.

Interesting. Yiddish is transliterated using Hebrew letters.

Did I mean to say Hebrew?

No, you got it right. Yiddish (Juedische Deutsch) is written with Hebrew letters, rather than Roman, as a nod to Zionism.

Robert - it would be too funny, if it were not taken seriously. I mean you must know the work attributed (falsely, it seems) to Mark Twain: "Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli."

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/twain.htm

Realize, of course, that language does change. Abraham Lincoln spelled "show" as "shew" which might have been closer to how he pronounced it. The 10-cent "dime" began as the "disme" pronounced (we think) like "deem." Lots of nations have dollars. Only the USA has a the dime, pronounce it and spell it as you wish. Also, young man, when I entered the 1st grade, in 1956, one of our phonics charts showed a red "waggon". I often still spell grey for gray, which is what my Crayolas called it. And I assume that you actually do know how to react to a sign that says "PED XING."

[syrakusos]

A philosophically related initiative that has appeared in many blue states is the "ban the box" movement, where "the box" refers to what you check on an employment application to signify that you have or have not been convicted of a felony in recent years.

Everything is "philosophically related." You might as well pick hippies who insist that organic apples are "good" but genetically modified foods are "bad." The organic apples (heirloom tomatoes, etc., etc.) are nothing at all like the "natural" varieties from before the last ice age (or two). You might pick the "philosophically related" issue of red state governors such as Texas's Rick Perry who pushed for a $3 billion bondage to invest in biotechnology. Heck, you might as well excoriate the Pope for all the difference it makes.

Your original post was about language and spelling. It was interesting and supported by some validity. It was incomplete and not completely correct.

You then segued into a conservative rant. We see many conservatives on Objectivist boards. They are drawn by the individualism and free market economics reflected in their own folksy cracker barrel at the potbellied stove down at the hardware store imaginings. "Yup, them coloreds sure are pushy. Why I was in Central City t'other day and this here colored man in an actual suit like a banker refused to step outta my way. And when I pushed him, he only said, "Beg pardon" like an English butler. Made me maddern a wet hen I tell ya!"

To address your point of ignorance: someone who actually robbed a liquor store and served time might be a better hire than someone who never got caught but who is in the process of committing the 30 or more felonies typical of a "first time" offender. I met a former liquor store owner. He found "ordinary" people to be actual criminals stealing his inventory.

Read here about employee theft. Most thefts in retail come from internal losses.

I grant that we live in a kleptocracy for the lack of a culturally accepted and implicitly objective philosophy. Nonetheless, we live in a kleptocracy. So, singling out the huge population of subjugated ex-prisoners is not an objective appraisal of individual integrity. The USA incarcerates nearly 1% of its population, far in excess of any western, industrialized nation. Most of them are in prison for non-violent crimes. Moreover, what a victim actually pleads guilty to, and what they really did might be two totally different things.

How do you judge personal integrity? I have no easy answer. I do suggest that those who have it recognize it in others. It starts and ends there.

[Robert Baratheon]

Everything is "philosophically related." You might as well pick hippies who insist that organic apples are "good" but genetically modified foods are "bad." The organic apples (heirloom tomatoes, etc., etc.) are nothing at all like the "natural" varieties from before the last ice age (or two). You might pick the "philosophically related" issue of red state governors such as Texas's Rick Perry who pushed for a $3 billion bondage to invest in biotechnology. Heck, you might as well excoriate the Pope for all the difference it makes.

Your original post was about language and spelling. It was interesting and supported by some validity. It was incomplete and not completely correct.

You then segued into a conservative rant. We see many conservatives on Objectivist boards. They are drawn by the individualism and free market economics reflected in their own folksy cracker barrel at the potbellied stove down at the hardware store imaginings. "Yup, them coloreds sure are pushy. Why I was in Central City t'other day and this here colored man in an actual suit like a banker refused to step outta my way. And when I pushed him, he only said, "Beg pardon" like an English butler. Made me maddern a wet hen I tell ya!"

To address your point of ignorance: someone who actually robbed a liquor store and served time might be a better hire than someone who never got caught but who is in the process of committing the 30 or more felonies typical of a "first time" offender. I met a former liquor store owner. He found "ordinary" people to be actual criminals stealing his inventory.

Read here about employee theft. Most thefts in retail come from internal losses.

I grant that we live in a kleptocracy for the lack of a culturally accepted and implicitly objective philosophy. Nonetheless, we live in a kleptocracy. So, singling out the huge population of subjugated ex-prisoners is not an objective appraisal of individual integrity. The USA incarcerates nearly 1% of its population, far in excess of any western, industrialized nation. Most of them are in prison for non-violent crimes. Moreover, what a victim actually pleads guilty to, and what they really did might be two totally different things.

How do you judge personal integrity? I have no easy answer. I do suggest that those who have it recognize it in others. It starts and ends there.

Of course everything is "related" in the broadest sense. However, a more thoughtful analysis recognizes degrees of relatedness as well. My point was that Yglesias's paternalistic attitude toward the lower classes with regard to language is consistent with progressive philosophy more generally and can be seen manifested in other areas of public policy, such as with the "ban the box" movement.

I haven't said anything racist here, so I don't see how your "coloreds" narrative is at all topical.

I'm also not sure why you think anyone is singling out convicts - it's just one piece of available information that employers can use to guide their decisions. Everyone understands that a convict "might" make a better employee than any other given applicant, but the information is relevant because it tells them something about past behavior. It's the same reason why grades and test scores are requiredd when applying to colleges, or why they ask whether you were fired from your last job. Prohibiting employers from even asking the question is progressive paternalism of the worst kind. It's saying both that convicts need to be granted special status under the law, and that employers can't be trusted to make thoughtful decisions on their own without the guidance and watchfulness of the state over their shoulder.

[Dglgmut]

I'm also not sure why you think anyone is singling out convicts - it's just one piece of available information that employers can use to guide their decisions. Everyone understands that a convict "might" make a better employee than any other given applicant, but the information is relevant because it tells them something about past behavior. It's the same reason why grades and test scores are required when applying to colleges, or why they ask whether you were fired from your last job. Prohibiting employers from even asking the question is progressive paternalism of the worst kind. It's saying both that convicts need to be granted special status under the law, and that employers can't be trusted to make thoughtful decisions on their own without the guidance and watchfulness of the state over their shoulder.

Generalizing tends to bother people. Insurance companies have rates for different groups of people, even if any particular individual in a group may not be accurately represented by the statistics. People call this unfair--as if the insurance companies benefit from misjudging people.

Imagine a black person. He or she is not albino, I'm assuming. It is for this reason that orange frogs exist that are entirely innocuous; even though there are exceptions to our generalizations does not mean that they do not generally serve to benefit us.

To tell someone that their apprehension to hire an ex-convict is unfair generalization requires statistics to back it up, and any kind of legislature preventing someone from using their own judgment is clearly an abject violation of individual rights.

[syrakusos]

Employment applications ask if you have ever been arrested, released without trial, found not guilty, pleaded to a lesser charge, had a conviction overturned, etc., etc. Right here on OL one of the conservatives went off like a old gun because "ignorant police officers" in Texas arrested a man for lawfully carrying an automatic weapon. Now that he has been arrested - even if he is found not guilty, or even if the charges are dropped - should he be hired to work in a retail store... or anywhere else?

We complain about the excessive powers of the government, easily enough.

I believe that Robert Baratheon's law-and-order rant was veiled racism. He was not concerned that our Orwellian state makes criminals as a business - and then sells them as chattels to so-called "private" prisons. He is afraid of
"minority" people who rob liquor stores. I wonder how many he actually meets on a daily basis. Generally, people tend to fear what they know least. The group most afraid of "crime" and least likely to be victimized are elderly, white, suburban women.

[Robert Baratheon]

I believe that Robert Baratheon's law-and-order rant was veiled racism. He was not concerned that our Orwellian state makes criminals as a business - and then sells them as chattels to so-called "private" prisons. He is afraid of "minority" people who rob liquor stores. I wonder how many he actually meets on a daily basis. Generally, people tend to fear what they know least. The group most afraid of "crime" and least likely to be victimized are elderly, white, suburban women.

Do you have any evidence from my post to support your "belief" that I am a racist who is afraid of minorities? Please feel free to quote it here. If you cannot, an acknowledgement of the fact that you cannot would be appropriate at this time.

For someone supposedly making a stand against unfair generalizations, you seem quite eager to make such generalizations yourself. It doesn't much bother me, mind you, I'm only taking a moment to point out the hypocrisy. I've been called a "racist" by progressives countless times for no reason other than that I oppose affirmative action, which, ironically, I oppose precisely because I view it as institutionalized racism. Your accusation seems to be a similar strain of that "logic" (I call it faith).

I'm further puzzled as to what you viewed as a "law-and-order rant" in my post. As a minarchist libertarian for legalization of all drugs and reduction or elimination of most prison sentences, I can honestly say I've never been characterized as "law-and-order" before. Please don't be so cruel as to keep us guessing, and quote the offending text here so people can judge for themselves. Again, if you cannot, an acknowledgement would be appropriate.

[tmj]

Other than what is irrational concerning 'racism', what is wrong with racists?

I don't really like the French, not sure why just don't , but that's just me, and based on stereotypical culturisms that I probably don't fully understand anyway. It's just fun to not like the French, heck I bet if I ever met a real French guy and he was nice, I'd like him.

[Dglgmut]

Other than what is irrational concerning 'racism', what is wrong with racists?

I don't really like the French, not sure why just don't , but that's just me, and based on stereotypical culturisms that I probably don't fully understand anyway. It's just fun to not like the French, heck I bet if I ever met a real French guy and he was nice, I'd like him.

If you are racist and refrain from any violent manifestation of your feelings, then what is "wrong" with you is that what goes on in your head offends people.

Racism should not be considered a threat to society (unless it becomes and excuse for violence), but rather something that will disadvantage the irrational individual.

[BaalChatzaf]

If you are racist and refrain from any violent manifestation of your feelings, then what is "wrong" with you is that what goes on in your head offends people.

Unless you make what goes on in your head public (in some fashion) what goes on in your head cannot offend anyone else. The space behind the eyes and between the ears is very private.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Baratheon]

tmj, BaalChatzaf, and dglgmut -

While I don't object to any of your specific points, I'd prefer to not allow Michael Marotta to control the conversation by making it *about* the subject of racism when nothing I've said could reasonably be construed as racist in the first place. By delving into these "what's-the-harm" arguments in response to his post, we are effectively handing people like Michael power to sideline any substantive arguments we make when they find them difficult to rebut at face value. I say we instead demand that he "put up or shut up" by producing evidence of this "racism" before engaging him on his own loaded terms. If he can't produce any evidence, then that really says it all, and let's not even dignify his accusation by discussing it further.

[BaalChatzaf]

tmj, BaalChatzaf, and dglgmut -

While I don't object to any of your specific points, I'd prefer to not allow Michael Marotta to control the conversation by making it *about* the subject of racism when nothing I've said could reasonably be construed as racist in the first place. By delving into these "what's-the-harm" arguments in response to his post, we are effectively handing people like Michael power to sideline any substantive arguments we make when they find them difficult to rebut at face value. I say we instead demand that he "put up or shut up" by producing evidence of this "racism" before engaging him on his own loaded terms. If he can't produce any evidence, then that really says it all, and let's not even dignify his accusation by discussing it further.

I am a bit racist. I am happy that due to circumstances many of which I could not nor did not control, I ended up being Jewish, rather the Christian. I consider it a happy accident. In a sense, I am saying: Thank you God, for not making me a Christian.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

I am a bit racist. I am happy that due to circumstances many of which I could not nor did not control, I ended up being Jewish, rather the Christian. I consider it a happy accident. In a sense, I am saying: Thank you God, for not making me a Christian.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Religion is choice, at least when you grow up and are not under control of your parents. I got a heavy dose of religion when I was a kid. My mother went to Bible school. My father could quote whole chapters of the Bible from memory. Any conversation with my father if it lasted long enough eventually got onto religion and then it stayed there. My father had a Bible passage for every occasion. When he was cleaning a barn, he quoted something about where there is no ox the crib is clean. I actually went to church when I was a kid, because I didn't know better at the time. I grew up in a village where nearly everyone was religious and there were lots of churches. My father went to every church that was based on the Bible. Now I'm a goddamn atheist and I have no use for any religion. Religion is choice. My choice is I reject all religions.

[BaalChatzaf]

jts, on 02 Jun 2013 - 3:11 PM, said:

Now I'm a goddamn atheist and I have no use for any religion. Religion is choice. My choice is I reject all religions.

You have no idea about how deep one can be programmed to be Jewish. Even Jews who no longer believe in God are steeped in Jewish cultural and moral tropes. There is no such thing as an ex Jews. There are observant Jews and non-observant Jews, but no ex-Jews. Once programmed, one is Jewish for life. One can choose just how observant one is but one can never clear the ethical and cultural factors out of mind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Baratheon]

You have no idea about how deep one can be programmed to be Jewish. Even Jews who no longer believe in God are steeped in Jewish cultural and moral tropes. There is no such thing as an ex Jews. There are observant Jews and non-observant Jews, but no ex-Jews. Once programmed, one is Jewish for life. One can choose just how observant one is but one can never clear the ethical and cultural factors out of mind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Oh, goodness. One needn't wonder why this site has been drawing racists and antisemites out of the woodwork with statements like this on display. I accept that these threads often function as springboards for broader discussions, but what the heck does this have to do with the original topic of this thread?

[Serapis Bey]

You have no idea about how deep one can be programmed to be Jewish. Even Jews who no longer believe in God are steeped in Jewish cultural and moral tropes. There is no such thing as an ex Jews. There are observant Jews and non-observant Jews, but no ex-Jews. Once programmed, one is Jewish for life. One can choose just how observant one is but one can never clear the ethical and cultural factors out of mind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Oh, goodness. One needn't wonder why this site has been drawing racists and antisemites out of the woodwork with statements like this on display. I accept that these threads often function as springboards for broader discussions, but what the heck does this have to do with the original topic of this thread?

RB, disregarding Kolker's "hardcore-ness" for a moment, you ought to give some thought to why an esteemed member here holds such a view. He is after all paternalistically looking out for his People.

SB

...Bob's your uncle!

[Robert Baratheon]

RB, disregarding Kolker's "hardcore-ness" for a moment, you ought to give some thought to why an esteemed member here holds such a view. He is after all paternalistically looking out for his People.

SB

...Bob's your uncle!

Whatever his motivation, the issue is that he is making broad and extreme generalizations about millions of individuals who might not self-identify or behave according to the "rules" of his rather absurd ethnic and anti-individualist narrative. I wouldn't presume to speak for him, so I ask that he return the favor by not presuming for speak for anyone other than himself.