w/r/t Mencken, I suspect that the appetite for vituperation and scandal is a human universal. A quick glance at the popular press in the UK, for example, would seem to suggest this.

>"high-quality, effective English writing has been out of fashion in the U.S. for decades."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that in at least some disciplines -- tech writing being mine -- the quality of writing has in fact gotten substantially better. Compare a computer manual from the 70s to one from today, and I would be very surprised indeed if one found the academic style of the earlier era to result in a more usable text than the contemporary writing. I will, however, impose the qualification that we're only talking about text that's actually been edited.

I'll go out on a limb too, like Mike, and suggest that Russell Smith really meant to say "high quality, effectively written English."

Spare us the politically correct posturing about how the ground zero mosque is all about "freedom of religion." It's a bad idea, and the fact that so many people find it so offensive should give even the most die-hard liberal pause. But I guess they're too busy trying to figure out how a majority of Americans can support that nasty, racist Arizona law.

I like comedian Jim Norton's take best: A mosque at ground zero is "like building a Benihana's at Pearl Harbor."

Thanks, Cliff, but the English language already has high quality, so what we need is high-quality English writing, not high-quality English. :) I am grateful to the Indians for pointing that out to me.

I notice that Gary's comment does not respond to the question in the post. Whether or not one likes the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero, how does one square opposition to it with the First Amendment?

Perhaps if JEM knew anything about the opinions of the Imam in charge of this mosque to be, and the fact that no one knows about the source of the many millions needed, he might not be so keen on distracting us with the First Amendment. Said Amendment does have its limits, and I believe they include limiting a building which is propaganda writ several stores large, and several blocks too close to the former World Trade Center complex. Unfortunately, no one is trying to prevent the Imam spewing his love for Sharia law and El Kaida. They simply want him to spew it elsewhere. I don't see the Japanese attempting to build a Shinto temple on the site of the Arizona.

"Unfortunately, no one is trying to prevent the Imam spewing his love for Sharia law and El Kaida."
Patricia the Terse

"I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants."
Jeffrey Goldberg:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/if-he-could-bin-laden-would-bomb-the-cordoba-initiative/60833/

Is Patricia the Terse really suggesting that, not only should the government prohibit a church from building on an otherwise lawful site, it should also make its decision based on whether or not it likes the opinions of the cleric the church has chosen? Is she so "conservative" that she wants to return to the 17th century?

And Gary's response did not so much ignore the question of the First Amendment as reject it as annoying and trivial. So much for these defenders of the Constitution. As is so often the case, by dismissing such questions as "politically correct posturing," he only shows how little regard he has for justice and ethics.

A mosque at ground zero is "like building a Benihana's at Pearl Harbor."I don't see the Japanese attempting to build a Shinto temple on the site of the Arizona.

According to Google Maps, the area around Pearl City, Hawaii, has its fair share of Japanese restaurants. And Shinto shrines were vandalized and Japanese people persecuted during and after the war.

But, as Mr. McIntyre noted, this misses the point anyway. But, in a way, it does answer the question: people are resorting to fear-mongering and demagoguery because they can't square this opposition with upholding the First Amendment.

Dang it. I must've messed up my blockquote tags. Those first two paragraphs should be quotes, while the next two paragraphs are mine.

I acknowledge that the mosque has a First Amendment right to be there; I never said it didn't. But that doesn't mean putting it there is the right thing to do. If the stated goal of said mosque is to promote "healing," as its backers claim, the goal is failing miserably.

The debate on the mosque has nothing do do with the government and religion: this should be decided by the people of New York City. And, incidentally, I notice the toadying Mayor Bloomberg thinks this is a fine idea. (He was never a real Republican: he changed parties when he ran after Giuliani couldn't seek another term.) And I see nothing in the First Amendment that quarantees any building the "right" to be anywhere. I don't think inanimate objects have rights anyway. Of course I want to return to the 17th century: I said so directly in my piece (ut supra) and naturally someone has quoted me directly. And I find it interesting although not surprising that Mr McIntyre paints people who consider themselves conservatives "bray(ing")whilst the other side presumably speaks in dulcet tones of sweet, tolerant reason. This is one of the problems with this space. It too often thinly disguises discussions on language, editing et al, as ways to talk about his politics. There are other places for political discussions. And the references to Pearl are not irrelevant. How about this one? Some Cistercian nuns had a chapel built on the site of Aushwitz: the Pope (previous Pope, I believe) asked them to vacate the premises, although I'm sure the order was in Medieval Latin. Although the nuns were there to pray for the souls of the tortured who suffered and died there, he thought it distracted from the place itself and all it represented. They left. This mosque, along with its swimming pool, and whatever politics its clergy hold, should go elsewhere.

The debate about the mosque, I have to contradict, has everything to do with government and religion. Once this Muslim group has satisfied municipal zoning regulations and building codes, it has the same right to build and operate as any other religious group. That is what the First Amendment means. The people of New York City do not get to vote on what religions they like and dislike.

Whether Mr. Bloomberg is a real Republican or not is of no concern to me, or to the issue under discussion; he has grasped the essential point.

Before the Terse One or anyone else moves to dismiss me as a mealy-mouthed purveyor of political correctitude, I should point out that the First Amendment applies equally to, say, the Rev. Fred Phelps and his "God hates fags" demonstrations at the funerals of soldiers. Repellant and his theology and tactics are, the First Amendment protects him.

If braying is offensive rhetoric, I'll withdraw it and instead point out that for public officials to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment over this mosque is demagogy, plain and simple.

The Permanent Mayor of New York City has not "grasped the essential point" regardless of JEM's assertions. He has pandered- such a good word - his way through 2-1/2 mayoral elections and seems to have the steam and arrogance to continue through another, if he can break or bend the law once again. But this debate is about fundamentalist Islamic terrorism and using euphemisms doesn't change that. Many Americans would hold the same objections if a Mosque were to be proposed at that grim place in rural Pennsylvania or in a part of the rebuilt wing in the Pentagon. The First Amendment does not allow you to do or say anything you wish. This reminds me of that ludicrous decision by a former Supreme Court about campaign finance. The Court ruled that speech and money are essentially the same for political purposes: most rational people would suggest that money is the means whereby, but not the thing itself. There have been protests against WalMarts and other large stores proposed in certain neighborhoods: are those people trying to violate WalMart's rights, or are they simply concerned for the places where they live and work?

This is one of the problems with this space. It too often thinly disguises discussions on language, editing et al as ways to talk about politics. There are other places for political discussions.

And yet, Patricia the Terse, those are the posts about which you seems to have the most to say :-)

It is true, there are plenty of other blogs where one can discuss politics, but I have found very few where the discourse of all parties is as articulate and civil as on You Don't Say. Also, since language is one of the primary tools wielded by politicians, I find it useful to have a newspaper copy editor examine how words are used and misused in the political arena.

I suggest that anyone who has evidence that the people involved with the mosque project are engaged in terrorist activities should approach the authorities instead of commenting on blogs.

I myself have no reason to think that, any more than I would have reason to think, say, that because the IRA enaged in terrorist acts, all Irishmen should be treated as potential terrorists, or that because IRA terrorists tended to be Roman Catholic, we should oppose construction of Roman Catholic churches lest we give comfort to the terrorists.

To get back to language briefly, I was interested in your use of "demagogy." I don't think I would have used that word.

I'm more familiar with "demagoguery."

Not quite but close to being on topic, David Sullivan at That's the Press, Baby has an interesting post about the culture wars, Western guilt, tribalism, an more at:
http://davisullblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/ultimate-lightness-of-revolution.html

Finally, even the captcha is getting into the controversial; the phrase to decipher is "U.S. aborting."

Bryan Garner calls demagogy a "needless variant" because demagoguery is twice as common. But I like demagogy for its closeness to the Greek, demagogia.

I'm also inclined to wonder, if we are to accuse Mayor Bloomberg of pandering (for that vast Muslim vote?), what term remains to describe those who are callously whipping up anti-Muslim bigotry?

Props to Laura Lee.

What Eve said.

And could we all just try to avoid hot button words such as "spewing" and "braying"? (Unless, of course, we get around to discussing eating contests and/or donkeys.)

The Irish-Catholics of New York City are not trying to build a church in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. There are, however, Americans of Irish origin who have given money to the IRA long after the public knew the money was going to terrorists. That anyone thinks it is good politics, if you must use the word, to build a mosque anywhere near the former World Trade Center, has a short memory regarding not only September 11, but of all the other Islamic terrorists acts before and since. And yes, His Mayorship will pander to the Muslim vote. THe Democrats, regardless of how they may describe themselves from election to election, have a history of courting all minorities. And thank you Dahlink, for the anti-spewing & braying vote. Most unnecessary terms. It may be true that the political stuff gets my - and others'- attention. (I generally have something to say about Latin, but never mind.) The politics just distracts from the thesis of this column: language, and particularly as it relates to newspapers and the editing thereof. Dahlink, however, is quite right: no spewing and braying. Keith Ubermensch does quite enough of that.

And what, please, is Benihana's?

Patricia the T: Benihana's is a chain of Japanese restaurants (you can find them with a google search). They serve good food, and the chefs put on a great cooking show right at the table. It gives a whole new meaning to going out for dinner and a show.