writing

Imprimis sinks into the mud   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged law liberty writing on by

For many years and through many address changes, Hillsdale College has regularly sent me its print newsletter, Imprimis, for free. I sometimes look at it. It’s been known to have good articles. The lead piece in the March/April 2026 issue, though, has me inclined to put each one straight into recycling.

The piece in question, by Edward J. Erler, is titled “Are We Subjects or Citizens? Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution.” It says, “Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true.”

Already the presentation is suspicious. The birthright citizenship clause is a declaration of who is a citizen, not a command. It isn’t about British common law.

A little further, he claims that “the idea of birthright citizenship … is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant…” That’s complete nonsense. The main goal of the Constitutional clause in question was to affirm that former slaves born in the United States have the rights of citizenship. In other words, to destroy the involuntary relation of master and servant.

The article tries to portray citizenship as an obligation bound on people, a form of serfdom. It does come with obligations, but on balance, it’s a benefit which people want to keep. It lets a person vote (subject to other requirements, such as age). It gives stronger protection under the law. It’s supposed to make a person immune from deportation, though lately this hasn’t always been observed.

Erler goes through various dodges, citing irrelevant history. He argues that jurisdiction “connoted ‘complete jurisdiction’ — in other words, not owing allegiance to anyone else.” If someone born in the US claims citizenship in another country on the basis of their parents, it seems reasonable at least to question their US citizenship. But in most cases, we’re talking about people who have lived in the US since their birth and don’t think of themselves as citizens of any other country. Foreign diplomats are an often-mentioned exception; they aren’t subject to US jurisdiction, and their children normally aren’t considered citizens. He’s not talking about dual citizenship or diplomatic immunity, though, but setting up a spurious claim about allegiance.

He declares that “‘subject to the jurisdiction’ does not simply mean, as is commonly thought, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.” If it’s “commonly thought” that jurisdiction means the sphere in which laws may be enforced and courts may act, that’s because because it does.

The implications of Erler’s doctrine are frightening. Citizenship would no longer be guaranteed by the Constitution to any American; it would depend on our attitudes as perceived by the government. If “allegiance” is a precondition of citizenship, then even people descended from the Pilgrims could have it revoked if the government calls their allegiance in doubt. For all I can tell, refusing to recite the Pledge to the Flag might be deemed enough to establish lack of allegiance. The title’s significance now becomes clear; Erler is saying we’re subjects, required to give fealty to the government.

It’s the same game as “creation science” or Holocaust denial. The aim is to create the impression of a two-sided question where there isn’t one, to make people think there’s a controversy over whether “jurisdiction” means jurisdiction or something else.

Not all arguments against birthright citizenship are dishonest on their face, even though I don’t think they’re valid. For instance, someone could argue that many countries have citizenship by parentage rather than place of birth and their claim takes precedence. My understanding is that if people born in the US don’t go to their parents’ homeland and don’t ask for citizenship, they’re US citizens and not subject to the rule of their parents’ country. The US took this position in the War of 1812.

Any publication will have articles I disagree with and even some I consider stupid. Pretending that denying people citizenship is saving them from serfdom, though, is absurd. A publication that claims to have editorial principles but features dishonest articles on its front page doesn’t get my respect.

Credit the songwriter!

This entry was posted in Music Writing and tagged music writing on by

The idea for this post started when I tried to find out if the resemblance of the 1979 song “Gloria” to the “Gloria” of Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis was intentional. (It was.) While doing the usual Internet searches, I found it repeatedly referred to as Laura Branigan’s song, even on lyrics sites, although she didn’t write it. Not to take away from her excellent performance, but she wrote neither the music, the original lyrics, nor the English-language version. Wikipedia credits Giancarlo Bigazzi and Umberto Tozzi as the creators of the original song and Jonathan King as the author of the English-language lyrics. Tozzi performed the Italian song before Branigan. Yet somehow Branigan gets all the credit.

(I’m not counting Beethoven as a creator. The song uses only nine notes of his. They give the song its backbone but not its content.)

I cited another example of failure to credit the song writer in a book discussion a couple of months ago.

It’s routine to give performers the credit for songs they didn’t write. The reason is laziness. People hear someone perform a song and assume that person must have written it. If you believe the lyrics sites, Frank Sinatra wrote over a hundred songs, but Wikipedia lists him as the creator or co-creator of only a handful. An exceptional performance makes the difference between a hit and a flop, but the performance wouldn’t exist if no one had written the song. Before recordings became the most common way to hear music, writers got more attention. William Billings, Stephen Foster, George Root, and Irving Berlin were famous names in their time. Today, it’s rare for songwriters to be well known unless they write musicals or perform their own songs.

When you’re writing about a song, especially if the lyrics or the musical content is important, please mention the writer’s or writers’ names.

This post was partially inspired by Debbie Ridpath Ohi’s campaign to get acknowledgement for the illustrators of children’s books. That’s important, too.

Reclaiming liberalism, revisited

This entry was posted in News and tagged Internet liberalism publishing writing on by

The words “liberal” and “liberty” look similar, and they come from a common root. At one time, the word referred to the advocacy of liberty. In the middle of the twentieth century, particularly in the USA, it took on a different meaning, advocacy of government as the solution to everything. The pendulum is swinging, back, though. As I noted in my earlier post on “reclaiming liberalism,” advocates of liberty and justice under law are being attacked as “liberals.” Meanwhile, the government-solves-everything bunch now prefers to call itself “progressive.” They’re vague on what they’re progressing toward.

I’m bringing this up again because the Institute for Humane Studies has launched an exciting new website, Liberalism.org. Many of the names on it will be familiar to advocates of liberty: Jason Kuznicki, Aaron Ross Powell, Radley Balko, Ilya Somin, Sarah Skwire, and others. And they pay for articles! I need to look into that. Their choosing to label the site liberal rather than libertarian is significant. While there are still overtly libertarian individuals and organizations fighting a good fight, the Libertarian Party has damaged the name by accommodating populists. It’s time to say that we, not the Democratic Party, are the real liberals.

How to write about chess

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged chess games writing on by

Certain errors constantly appear in TV shows and movies portraying chess games. I’m no expert player, but I know the rules well and used to go to tournaments. Here’s a guide on mistakes to avoid.

The starting position

First, the board must be positioned correctly. The lower right square from each player’s viewpoint must be white. It’s amazingly common for illustrations and TV and movie games to get this wrong. See, for example, this well-known scene from The Seventh Seal.

Queen faces queen, king faces king. The white queen is on a white square, and the black queen is on a black square. Going outward from the queen and king are the bishops, knights, and rooks. The colors of the opposing sides don’t have to be black and white, though they’re called that by convention.

Starting position of a standard chess game

The play

Chess etiquette says that you leave your opponent undisturbed while they’re considering their move. You don’t rush them, even if they’ve been contemplating a full minute. A good player will always take time to consider the possibilities. Casual conversation during a game is unusual. Silence can make the scene dull, so the actors can speed up the play and perhaps have a conversation related to the plot. Avoid showing pressure on the opponent, unless it’s to show how rude a player is.

The moves in a visual presentation should be plausible. I don’t know who controls this, but probably the script writer isn’t expected to dictate each move. Maybe the actors pick their moves, or maybe the director does. Probably the game won’t be shown move for move, anyway.

The chess game in The Thomas Crown Affair is nicely done. The moves are plausible, and the players are quiet. The woman is trying to distract the man with her looks, but that’s presumably part of the story.

Terminology

A gambit is the offered sacrifice of a pawn in the game’s opening.

The pieces that look like crenellated towers are rooks, not castles.

A stalemate is a position where a player isn’t in check but has no legal move. The game is a draw. Draws by agreement or by other rules aren’t stalemates.

Checkmate out of nowhere

What really bugs me is the scene where a player effects a checkmate without the opponent seeing it coming. This happens only among beginners, but we see it all the time. In a normal game, one player will realize defeat is inevitable at least a few moves before the end. Yes, a checkmate out of nowhere is dramatic, but there are other ways to achieve drama. The player on the losing side can sense the noose tightening. The one with the advantage can announce, “Mate in four.” Then maybe the opponent will say. “I don’t think so … Damn it, you’re right. I resign.” Good actors can make more out of that than out of a sudden checkmate. Most games among competent players end with a draw or a resignation, rather than being played out to the checkmate.

A player can resign by saying “Resign,” or by tipping over the king.

Here’s an article with a long list of TV shows, movies, and comics with chess blunders.

These tips may not apply to chess variants. Speed chess is fun; it imposes a tight time limit on the players’ moves, so it could allow a livelier scene. No one knows the rules for Star Trek’s 3-D chess, so anything goes. But if you’re portraying a game of standard chess, these tips may help you to avoid mistakes without sacrificing drama.

Don’t let a bot do your writing

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged AI SanityProject software writing on by

A couple of days ago I was in a conversation where one of the people talked about letting an AI bot rewrite her business correspondence. She thought that her own style might seem abrupt and an appropriately directed chatbot could produce a less confrontational tone. Handing authorship to a bot is almost always a bad idea.

If it’s something purely utilitarian, like placing an order, then fine. Having software write up the request could save some time and make sure the numbers add up. But if it’s something the reader will care about, then it should come from you, not a machine. There’s still room for software to help you. A spelling and grammar checker can catch errors. I’ve used Grammarly and Language Tool. The important thing is to look at each suggestion and decide whether you want it. You can even have it check your tone, as long as you make the final decision yourself. Sometimes a “correction” will seriously change the meaning. The style might be wrong for your intended readers.

The point isn’t to flee from all forms of artificial intelligence. It’s to keep the content and voice yours. You may not be a pro-quality writer, but I’m sure nearly all of you reading this are competent. People would rather have something in your voice than something polished, grammatically correct, and fake-sounding.

If you let software be your full-time secretary, it will have a set of biases. Every creator of original text, human or machine, does. It will express views, perhaps subtly, by its choice of words and avoidance of topics or expressions. It will say things you wouldn’t.

Better to say things in your own way, improve your style as you go, and let your writing authentically represent you.