Never Forget

I first linked to the Pearl Harbor Survivors Project back in September when they rolled out the project. The project is trying to capture as many memories of the survivors and their family members as they can. I was reminded to link them again by this editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser.

For the past few days, we've seen a number of Pearl Harbor survivors in Waikiki, wearing their hats with logos indicating that they survived the attack 65 years ago today. They are here, from all parts of the nation, to commemorate this somber, landmark anniversary, and to serve as physical reminders of a part of history that we must never forget.

But with many of them well into their 80s and 90s, their numbers are fast declining. That makes it all the more important that their contributions are not forgotten.

Following the attacks of Sept. 11, this nation has been involved in a very different type of war than that fought by these brave soldiers. But it is a war, nonetheless, where lives are just as valued, and sacrifices are no less great. For us, Sept. 11 is a date that will remain ingrained in our hearts and minds, just as Dec. 7 has remained in theirs for more than six decades.

The Pearl Harbor Survivors Project understands this parallel between today's generation and that of these veterans. For three months, those involved in this project have been collecting stories from Pearl Harbor survivors and their families. They hope to bridge the two generations, as well as future generations, by posting these stories online and distributing them on Web sites.

The project is funded by the Pearl Harbor Memorial Fund, a non-profit group that is trying to raise $50 million to build a new Pearl Harbor Memorial Museum.

The Project's website appears to be under severe stress today, which really is not surprising given the significance of the date. But this project is a worthwhile effort. (Looking back on the old post, I see they were running slowly in September as well. They may have some script issues with the website if it is bogging down this badly).

December 7th, 1941

Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of American was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our secretary of state a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, address to Congress, December 8th, 1941.

The Pearl Harbor Survivor's Association, with ever dwindling numbers, is meeting today at Pearl Harbor to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the attack. It may well be the last meeting for the group that has met every five years for the past four decades. Fewer than 500 survivors are expected to attend this year.

This will be their last visit to this watery grave to share stories, exchange smiles, find peace and salute their fallen friends. This, they say, will be their final farewell.

"This will be one to remember," said Mal Middlesworth, president of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. "It's going to be something that we'll cherish forever."

The survivors have met here every five years for four decades, but they're now in their 80s or 90s and are not counting on a 70th reunion. They have made every effort to report for one final roll call.

"We're like the dodo bird. We're almost extinct," said Middlesworth, now an 83-year-old retiree from Upland, Calif., but then — on Dec. 7, 1941 — an 18-year-old Marine on the USS San Francisco.

Nearly 500 survivors from across the nation were expected to make the trip to Hawaii, bringing with them 1,300 family members, numerous wheelchairs and too many haunting memories.

Memories of a shocking, two-hour aerial raid that destroyed or heavily damaged 21 ships and 320 aircraft, that killed 2,390 people and wounded 1,178 others, that plunged the United States into World War II and set in motion the events that led to atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"I suspect not many people have thought about this, but we're witnessing history," said Daniel Martinez, chief historian at the USS Arizona Memorial. "We are seeing the passing of a generation."

In 1938 the last formal gathering of civil war veterans was held in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke on that day, too.

Augean Stables

Joseph Epstein writes about one man's efforts to clean up the slovenly usage of language in today's Opinion Journal. He likens the task to the cleaning of the Augean Stables. The subject of his piece is one Robert Hartwell Fiske, who runs an online monthly journal called the Vocabula Review.

Mr. Fiske is the latest–and let us hope not the last–in a line of language guardians that goes back, in English, to Jonathan Swift and has been continued, closer to our time, by H.L. Mencken, H.W. Fowler, George Orwell, F.L. Lucas and Sir Ernest Gowers. About the decay of language, Mr. Fiske is earnest without being humorless, strict without being scornful, and elevated without being snobbish.

The third Sunday of every month, Mr. Fiske publishes a number of articles about "some aspect of the language and its effect on society." Running the operation out of his house in Rockport, Mass., he asks a $25 subscription fee from language lovers (renewing subscribers pay $15), of which–no great surprise here–there are all too few. The Vocabula Review had a high circulation figure of 1,400, but the number is now down to fewer than a thousand.

Mr. Fiske is on the job 24/7, a phrase I feel confident he would, rightly, loathe. Along with running his online magazine, he has produced three useful books–the Dictionary of Concise Writing, the Dimwit's Dictionary, and the Dictionary of Disagreeable English–and an anthology of pieces from the Vocabula Review called "Vocabula Bound."

Each issue of the Vocabula Review (of which there are now 87–one every month since September 1999) is a miscellany of articles on English as it is used in America ("Singular They: The Pronoun That Came In From the Cold"), controversies of the day such as the teaching of English to immigrants ("José, Can You See?"), and various columns and departments, among them Shibboleths, Bethumped With Words, Scarcely Used Words, Clues to Concise Writing, Grumbling About Grammar, and letters from some of the language fanatics who are among Mr. Fiske's subscribers.

I read the Vocabula Review for amusement and as a prophylactic against falling into sloppiness in my own writing. The Vocabula Review is run on the prescriptivist principle that there are correct and incorrect uses of words; the descriptivists hold that any language used by the majority is automatically acceptable English. "Whatever!" might be the descriptivists' motto; "Not in my house you don't" that of the prescriptivists.

One of the things that was drilled into me very early on is that short and direct is better than long-winded and circuitous. Using more words to convey a thought does not clarify that thought. But Mr. Fiske also campaigns against imprecise usage and foolish catchphrases.

Mr. Fiske's own characteristic tone is perhaps best caught in his Dimwit's Dictionary. In that 400-page work a vast body of words and phrases are shown up for the linguistic ciphers they are. He has established a number of categories for "Expressions That Dull Our Reason and Dim Our Insight." These included grammatical gimmicks, which are expressions (such as "whatever," "you had to be there") that are used by people who have lost their powers of description; ineffectual phrases ("the fact remains," "the thing about it is," "it is important to realize") used by people to delay coming to the point or for simple bewilderment; infantile phrases ("humongous," "gazillions," "everything's relative"), which show evidence of unformed reasoning; moribund metaphors ("window of opportunity") and insipid similes ("cool as a cucumber"); suspect superlatives ("an amazing person," "the best and the brightest"), which are just what the category suggests; torpid terms ("prioritize," "proactive," "significant other"), which are vapid and dreary; not to mention plebeian sentiments, overworked words, popular prescriptions, quack equations, and wretched redundancies.

If you'd care to check out Mr. Fiske's efforts his website can be found here.

Redundant Terms

One old joke says that the words 'criminal lawyer' are redundant. Kimberly Strassel, writing in the Opinion Journal details a case that shows just how bad it is.

Harry Kananian died in the year 2000 of mesothelioma–a cancer almost always caused by asbestos. But the legacy that may survive him is the role he is posthumously playing in exposing evidence of asbestos litigation fraud.

In early 2000, the Ohio resident met with the law firm of Early, Ludwick, Sweeney & Strauss to see about collecting compensation from special trusts set up by companies to deal with asbestos liabilities. So the law firm filed a claim to one trust, saying Kananian had worked in a World War II shipyard and was exposed to insulation containing asbestos. It also filed a claim to another trust saying he had been a shipyard welder. A third claim, to another trust, said he'd unloaded asbestos off ships in Japan. And a fourth claim said that he'd worked with "tools of asbestos" before the war. Meanwhile, a second law firm, Brayton Purcell, submitted two more claims to two further trusts, with still different stories. The two firms swept up as much as $700,000 for Kananian and his estate from trusts and settlements.

In the legal trade, this is known as "double dipping"–the process by which lawyers file claims at many different bankruptcy trusts on behalf of a single plaintiff. Each trust is told a different story about how the client got sick, and the plaintiff collects from all of them. Of course, the lawyers collect too. This practice may well have remained unexposed had not Brayton Purcell decided to cash in on Kananian one more time. It sued Lorillard Tobacco, this time claiming its client had become sick from smoking Kent cigarettes, whose filters contained asbestos for several years in the 1950s. That suit has now exploded on Brayton, exposing one of the asbestos bar's more lucrative cash cows.

In Cleveland, Judge Harry Hanna of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas has been asked to rule on a motion to disqualify Brayton from the suit and bar it from practicing in Ohio. The firm stands accused by Lorillard of lying to the court, defrauding asbestos trust funds and obstructing discovery. Those accusations come via a raft of internal emails and documents, most if which are referred to in the court record, that tell a story of two law firms using contradictory stories to rake in money from bankruptcy trusts, then potentially trying to cover it up. All parties are under a gag order from the judge. Last week, Brayton Purcell, amazingly, requested to withdraw itself from the case.

There is a lot of detail in the piece that shows the cover-up attempts that the firm engaged in. It is one of those cases where the lawyers fully earn their bad reputation with the public. It is also a serious call for some reforms of a horrible skewed system that allows this kind of fraud and abuse.

UPDATE: January 12, 2007: Brayton Purcell responded to the article in a letter to the Wall Street Journal on January 9th, 2007. Their reply can be found here. Capsule version, they do not believe it was "double dipping" and the handling of the matter was justified. They contacted me by email to ask I insert this into the post.