on being pragmatic
Now for the other topic- what does it mean when in everyday conversation something/someone is called "pragmatic"? For example, Richard Kelley has a "pragmatic solution" for the immigration issue:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5324967

Comments
Semantics is about meanings. Sometimes meaning can be viewed in terms of definitions, sometimes in other ways (associations, logic, implications, politics of saying who you are, etc.)
Some people take meaning (semantics) seriously. Other people (usually superficial thinkers) dismiss meaning as not worthy of consideration. Saying that something is "just" semantics is a way of avoiding a discussion about what things mean, sweeping talk and the power of talk under a rug. What a lot of these people don't realize is that their statement (that x is "just" semantics) has its own semantics. If all semantic issues were unimportant, then all language would be undermined, it would not work, and we would be left to solve our problems by shaking branches and screeching noisily at each other.
If you take semantics seriously, there are a lot of ideas and skills that can be learned to takle those everpresent problems of meaning.
Pragmatics is a bit more abstract because it involves MORE than language. It appears as an issue (and a tool for communication) when language is used to do more than just mean something referentially. People interact with each other pragmatically BEFORE they talk (when babies cry, etc). And even after they learn to talk, a lot of human interaction (getting work done and getting each other to help get the work done) is done by USING language in ways that are not purely semantic.
When you record and examine a conversation (or a snippet of one), you can look at each piece in terms of how it refers to things (semantics) or in terms of what social actions the people are taking (pragmatics).
To see the difference, consider the currently popular topic of political campaigning. Voters may look at the semantics of a speech (what things are being talked about, how they are combined, what is being said about them, what is true or not?). But they may also critically examine the pragmatics (who is the 'good guy', what group is the candidate a part of, what personality is being expressed, what appeals are being made to sway you?).
To best appreciate a political speech, look at all aspects.
I think the issue of political correctness makes people "talk pragmatic".
If politics is about getting agreements made and getting social work done in an environment of diverse views, then what are the main tools for doing that work? Language? Rhetoric? Argument? Facts and Logic? Negotiation? Dealmaking? Yes.
So in politics there is a lot of pragmatic work that is not related to political correctness, a lot of pragmatic work that is meaningful and constructive, a lot of pragmatic work where the semantics of utterances are employed for getting people together to meet goals.
That's cool stuff eh?