PERCENTAGES DON'T ADD -- A sales clerk told our friend Dinty Ramble that in addition to the offered 20 percent discount, there would be another 10 percent taken off the list price, for a total of 30 percent. Dinty tried to explain that it doesn't work that way; the 10 percent comes off the already lowered price, not the initial price, so it cannot total 30. His protestations fell on deaf ears. Example: At a list price of $100, a discount of 20 percent brings the price down to $80. The addition 10 percent comes off the $80, and would reduce the price by another $8, bringing the bottom line to $72. Total discount: 28 percent. And no, this has nothing to do with antelope. Or even cantelope. Besides, said Dinty's wife, we can't elope, we're already married.
TRIPLE TROUBLE -- A 300 percent increase is not the same as three times as much. It's actually 400 percent. Consider: From two to four is a doubling, and a 100 percent increase. And so on.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
ER Flier
Editor's Revenge
Caustic, acerbic, satiric, curmudgeonly.
Invite your friends
Editor's Revenge is a free blogletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Plus comments on whatever else annoys the author. Logomachist: J.T. Harding.
To subscribe, send your email address to: editorsrevenge@comcast.net.
Check out the blog and join the fun at:
http://editorsrevenge.blogspot.com/.
Caustic, acerbic, satiric, curmudgeonly.
Invite your friends
Editor's Revenge is a free blogletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Plus comments on whatever else annoys the author. Logomachist: J.T. Harding.
To subscribe, send your email address to: editorsrevenge@comcast.net.
Check out the blog and join the fun at:
http://editorsrevenge.blogspot.com/.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
ER for July 2009
From the archive
Second Series
Volume II, Number 1
July, 2009
SPLASH -- Or, how to lie with statistics. The Philadelphia Inquirer for Wednesday, June 17, splashed a Page One story on Gov. Rendell's proposal to boost the Pennsylvania income tax by 16.5 percent. At first blush, an astounding number. However, in context, it is not only not a big deal, but also inaccurate. Certainly, a 16.5 percent boost in anything can be a major hit. The reality, however, as indicated in a chart next to the story, is that the state income tax rate will rise from 3.07 percent to 3.57 percent, an increase of one-half of one percentage point. Moreover, this is an increase of 16.2 percent, not 16.5. Few people would get wound up over an increase of one-half of one percentage point, unless the amount involved is a seven-digit sum. For a worker with a taxable state income of $20,000, however, the amount involved would be a $100 increase for the entire year, from $614 to $714.
STATISTICS, PART II -- Meanwhile, across the Delaware River, an attack ad against Gov. Jon Corzine claimed that the unemployment rate in New Jersey soared by 73 percent. The ad did not say what the jobless rate actually was, nor did it give a time frame. Data released June 17 by the New Jersey Department of Labor showed that the jobless rate in May the state did, indeed, rise from a year ago, from 5.1 percent to 8.8 percent, an increase of 3.7 percentage points. True, this is a 72.5 percent jump. But it's important to remember the base. An increase from 2 to 4 is a 100 percent rise, as is an increase from 4 to 8. And it would also be accurate to say that those last two numbers represent a doubling in the rate. But in context, a 3.7 percentage point increase does not necessarily justify a harangue about a 73 percent leap. By the way, the ad also neglected to mention that New Jersey's unemployment rate for May was below the national average of 9.4 percent.
WE'RE BACK -- And with that timely comment on state economic issues, the cast and crew of Editor's Revenge springs back into action after a hiatus of more years than we care to think about. Postage and printing costs, as well as other issues, took us out of the fray, but the growth of the Internet and other technological marvels have eliminated those production costs. And our retirement from the journalistic vineyards has left us with more time to pick at the fruits of those who try to graft incompetence onto otherwise healthy plants. Enough, before we drive that metaphor into the ground.
THE CAST AND CREW -- You'll likely be hearing from the likes of Mad Dog O'Shaughnessy, Pug Mahoney, Dinty Ramble and other denizens of the word warrior commentariat as the campaign for good writing resumes, largely by pointing out the silly as well as praising the serene. Most of the material will come from daily newspapers, but we'll pick up on things from broadcast, magazine and political sources as well.
SHALLOW AND MEANINGLESS -- Speaking of wells, why is it that so many news broadcasters, especially in local markets, find it essential to begin every item (and sometimes every paragraph) with the word "well"? It's pointless, adds nothing to the story they're about to tell, and becomes irritating when used to excess.
PONDERING -- The wider the lake, the more shallow the shore.
CURIODDITIES -- He’s on beyond weird and out the other side. “The rain came out of nowhere,” according to a CBS Philadelphia meteorologist. Strange. We thought it came from storm systems in the sky, usually out of the west. The same CBS3 newscast featured a story about “the longest married couple in the country.” Actually, they looked average height to us. The issue here is that in broadcast news, viewers can’t see hyphens. In print, the phrase “longest-married couple” makes it clear that the first adjective is coupled to the second. There’s a difference between multiple adjectives and compound modifiers.
THE WINE KING -- The bottle of cabernet sauvignon had a “Blue Christmas” label and prominently displayed a picture of . . . Elvis.
________________________________________________________________________
Editor's Revenge is a free monthly newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. To subscribe, send your email address to editorsrevenge@comcast.net. Logomachist: J.T. Harding.
Second Series
Volume II, Number 1
July, 2009
SPLASH -- Or, how to lie with statistics. The Philadelphia Inquirer for Wednesday, June 17, splashed a Page One story on Gov. Rendell's proposal to boost the Pennsylvania income tax by 16.5 percent. At first blush, an astounding number. However, in context, it is not only not a big deal, but also inaccurate. Certainly, a 16.5 percent boost in anything can be a major hit. The reality, however, as indicated in a chart next to the story, is that the state income tax rate will rise from 3.07 percent to 3.57 percent, an increase of one-half of one percentage point. Moreover, this is an increase of 16.2 percent, not 16.5. Few people would get wound up over an increase of one-half of one percentage point, unless the amount involved is a seven-digit sum. For a worker with a taxable state income of $20,000, however, the amount involved would be a $100 increase for the entire year, from $614 to $714.
STATISTICS, PART II -- Meanwhile, across the Delaware River, an attack ad against Gov. Jon Corzine claimed that the unemployment rate in New Jersey soared by 73 percent. The ad did not say what the jobless rate actually was, nor did it give a time frame. Data released June 17 by the New Jersey Department of Labor showed that the jobless rate in May the state did, indeed, rise from a year ago, from 5.1 percent to 8.8 percent, an increase of 3.7 percentage points. True, this is a 72.5 percent jump. But it's important to remember the base. An increase from 2 to 4 is a 100 percent rise, as is an increase from 4 to 8. And it would also be accurate to say that those last two numbers represent a doubling in the rate. But in context, a 3.7 percentage point increase does not necessarily justify a harangue about a 73 percent leap. By the way, the ad also neglected to mention that New Jersey's unemployment rate for May was below the national average of 9.4 percent.
WE'RE BACK -- And with that timely comment on state economic issues, the cast and crew of Editor's Revenge springs back into action after a hiatus of more years than we care to think about. Postage and printing costs, as well as other issues, took us out of the fray, but the growth of the Internet and other technological marvels have eliminated those production costs. And our retirement from the journalistic vineyards has left us with more time to pick at the fruits of those who try to graft incompetence onto otherwise healthy plants. Enough, before we drive that metaphor into the ground.
THE CAST AND CREW -- You'll likely be hearing from the likes of Mad Dog O'Shaughnessy, Pug Mahoney, Dinty Ramble and other denizens of the word warrior commentariat as the campaign for good writing resumes, largely by pointing out the silly as well as praising the serene. Most of the material will come from daily newspapers, but we'll pick up on things from broadcast, magazine and political sources as well.
SHALLOW AND MEANINGLESS -- Speaking of wells, why is it that so many news broadcasters, especially in local markets, find it essential to begin every item (and sometimes every paragraph) with the word "well"? It's pointless, adds nothing to the story they're about to tell, and becomes irritating when used to excess.
PONDERING -- The wider the lake, the more shallow the shore.
CURIODDITIES -- He’s on beyond weird and out the other side. “The rain came out of nowhere,” according to a CBS Philadelphia meteorologist. Strange. We thought it came from storm systems in the sky, usually out of the west. The same CBS3 newscast featured a story about “the longest married couple in the country.” Actually, they looked average height to us. The issue here is that in broadcast news, viewers can’t see hyphens. In print, the phrase “longest-married couple” makes it clear that the first adjective is coupled to the second. There’s a difference between multiple adjectives and compound modifiers.
THE WINE KING -- The bottle of cabernet sauvignon had a “Blue Christmas” label and prominently displayed a picture of . . . Elvis.
________________________________________________________________________
Editor's Revenge is a free monthly newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. To subscribe, send your email address to editorsrevenge@comcast.net. Logomachist: J.T. Harding.
ER for January 2010
Second Series
Volume II, Number 1
January, 2010
WHOM GOES THEIR? -- Using the right pronoun isn't hard, if a little thought is put to the problem. One suggestion: Substitute "him" and if the phrase still makes sense, the "m" form is what you want. Otherwise, the matching pair is "who" and "he." (With appropriate gender matching, of course.) Phrasings of the type "... whom the author thought was not a strong enough leader..." are common, and also wrong. Try this: Take out the words "the author thought" and the sentence reads "whom was not a strong enough leader." And this, to those with a reasonable ear, is the wrong choice. In more technical grammatical terms, "whom" is the objective form. That is, it's the target of something else, usually words like "to," or "about."
BUMPER STICKER -- "I am the grammarian about whom your mother warned you."
GOOD HEADLINE -- Remember the story about the woman who was charged with prostitution for allegedly offering herself in exchange for two World Series tickets? The story went viral last October, but the charges did not go away. Last month, The Intelligencer of Doylestown PA reported a hearing day with this headline: "Take Her Out to the Court Room."
STICKY FINGERS -- TV ad for the new James Patterson novel calls the book "unputdownable." Does that mean they used Crazy Glue in the binding?
DECADES OF CONFUSION -- The Philadelphia Inquirer ran an excellent series on the problems of the local criminal justice system, and a post-series analysis noted that the paper ran a similar series in 1973, pointing out that there has been no change since. But while the text called the time frame "nearly four decades" (true), the headline called it "40 years" (not quite). A decade is, indeed, 10 years, but from 1973 to 2009 is 36 years, not 40. Sports writers are especially fond of using the two terms interchangeably, so that someone who was active in 1989 can be said to have played in the '80s. And if that person were still active in 2000, that qualifies as another decade, making for three decades. But that's not the same as 30 years. For example, if the player begins in late December, 1989, and stops in early January, 2000, that's 10 years and a few days. So while it would be correct to say the player was active "during three decades," it would not be correct to say he or she played "for three decades."
MEAN ARITHMETIC -- In the Economist for December 19th, columnist Lexington was mistaken when he wrote: "Half of American children must, mathematically, be below average." In any number series, half will be below the median, but this is not derived mathematically; rather, it is positional. If five students take a test and one scores 65 and the others score 75, the average is 73. Thus, only one student (20 percent of the population) is below average. Unless, of course, the students are from Garrison Keillor's (fictional) Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average."
RULE NUMBER ONE -- Get the name right. The governor of New Jersey is Jon Corzine, without an "h." Likewise the putative star in the reality TV show "Jon and Kate Plus Eight." And in the New York Times for Dec. 31, the headline in the Business Section referred to the "Import-Export Bank." The second paragraph of the text had it right: The Export-Import Bank of the United States, also known as the "Ex-Im Bank."
__________________________________________________________________________
Editor's Revenge is a free monthly newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Logomachist: J.T. Harding. To subscribe, send your email address to: j.t.harding@comcast.net.
Volume II, Number 1
January, 2010
WHOM GOES THEIR? -- Using the right pronoun isn't hard, if a little thought is put to the problem. One suggestion: Substitute "him" and if the phrase still makes sense, the "m" form is what you want. Otherwise, the matching pair is "who" and "he." (With appropriate gender matching, of course.) Phrasings of the type "... whom the author thought was not a strong enough leader..." are common, and also wrong. Try this: Take out the words "the author thought" and the sentence reads "whom was not a strong enough leader." And this, to those with a reasonable ear, is the wrong choice. In more technical grammatical terms, "whom" is the objective form. That is, it's the target of something else, usually words like "to," or "about."
BUMPER STICKER -- "I am the grammarian about whom your mother warned you."
GOOD HEADLINE -- Remember the story about the woman who was charged with prostitution for allegedly offering herself in exchange for two World Series tickets? The story went viral last October, but the charges did not go away. Last month, The Intelligencer of Doylestown PA reported a hearing day with this headline: "Take Her Out to the Court Room."
STICKY FINGERS -- TV ad for the new James Patterson novel calls the book "unputdownable." Does that mean they used Crazy Glue in the binding?
DECADES OF CONFUSION -- The Philadelphia Inquirer ran an excellent series on the problems of the local criminal justice system, and a post-series analysis noted that the paper ran a similar series in 1973, pointing out that there has been no change since. But while the text called the time frame "nearly four decades" (true), the headline called it "40 years" (not quite). A decade is, indeed, 10 years, but from 1973 to 2009 is 36 years, not 40. Sports writers are especially fond of using the two terms interchangeably, so that someone who was active in 1989 can be said to have played in the '80s. And if that person were still active in 2000, that qualifies as another decade, making for three decades. But that's not the same as 30 years. For example, if the player begins in late December, 1989, and stops in early January, 2000, that's 10 years and a few days. So while it would be correct to say the player was active "during three decades," it would not be correct to say he or she played "for three decades."
MEAN ARITHMETIC -- In the Economist for December 19th, columnist Lexington was mistaken when he wrote: "Half of American children must, mathematically, be below average." In any number series, half will be below the median, but this is not derived mathematically; rather, it is positional. If five students take a test and one scores 65 and the others score 75, the average is 73. Thus, only one student (20 percent of the population) is below average. Unless, of course, the students are from Garrison Keillor's (fictional) Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average."
RULE NUMBER ONE -- Get the name right. The governor of New Jersey is Jon Corzine, without an "h." Likewise the putative star in the reality TV show "Jon and Kate Plus Eight." And in the New York Times for Dec. 31, the headline in the Business Section referred to the "Import-Export Bank." The second paragraph of the text had it right: The Export-Import Bank of the United States, also known as the "Ex-Im Bank."
__________________________________________________________________________
Editor's Revenge is a free monthly newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Logomachist: J.T. Harding. To subscribe, send your email address to: j.t.harding@comcast.net.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
ER for September 2010
By John T. Harding
ROUND AND ROUND AGAIN -- "San Francisco is surrounded on three sides ..." To surround to just that, and covers all sides, not just a few. SF is a peninsula, (Latin for "almost an island") and as such has water on three sides. If it were surrounded, it would have water on all sides, and it would be an island.
STANDARDS? -- Newsweek magazine just published a list of the "ten best politicians in the world." Pug Mahoney, the Irish boxer, wondered what the standards were.
THEY'RE BREEDING -- We herewith pass on a list of questions posed to students in last year's GED examination, along with some of the answers. Warning: This could be hazardous to your evaluation of the American education system. Q: Name the four seasons A: Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar. Q: Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink. A: Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists. Q: How is dew formed? A: The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire. Q: What causes the tides in the oceans? A: The tides are a fight between the earth and the moon. All water tends to flow towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon, and nature abhors a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins the fight.
FUNNY, OR TRAGIC? -- Q: What are steroids? A: Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs. Q: What happens to your body as you age? A: When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental. Q: What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty? A: He says goodbye to his boyhood and looks forward to adultery. Q: Name a major disease associated with cigarettes. A: Premature death. Q: How can you delay milk turning sour. A: Keep it in the cow.
REMEDIAL ANATOMY -- Q: What is a fibula? A: A small lie. Q: What does varicose mean? A: Nearby. Q: What is a terminal illness? A: When you are sick at the airport. Q: What does the word "benign" mean? A: Benign is what you will be after you be eight.
ROUND AND ROUND AGAIN -- "San Francisco is surrounded on three sides ..." To surround to just that, and covers all sides, not just a few. SF is a peninsula, (Latin for "almost an island") and as such has water on three sides. If it were surrounded, it would have water on all sides, and it would be an island.
STANDARDS? -- Newsweek magazine just published a list of the "ten best politicians in the world." Pug Mahoney, the Irish boxer, wondered what the standards were.
THEY'RE BREEDING -- We herewith pass on a list of questions posed to students in last year's GED examination, along with some of the answers. Warning: This could be hazardous to your evaluation of the American education system. Q: Name the four seasons A: Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar. Q: Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink. A: Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists. Q: How is dew formed? A: The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire. Q: What causes the tides in the oceans? A: The tides are a fight between the earth and the moon. All water tends to flow towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon, and nature abhors a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins the fight.
FUNNY, OR TRAGIC? -- Q: What are steroids? A: Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs. Q: What happens to your body as you age? A: When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental. Q: What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty? A: He says goodbye to his boyhood and looks forward to adultery. Q: Name a major disease associated with cigarettes. A: Premature death. Q: How can you delay milk turning sour. A: Keep it in the cow.
REMEDIAL ANATOMY -- Q: What is a fibula? A: A small lie. Q: What does varicose mean? A: Nearby. Q: What is a terminal illness? A: When you are sick at the airport. Q: What does the word "benign" mean? A: Benign is what you will be after you be eight.
Patterns: A story
By John T. Harding
The journey to peace begins with an open mind.
It had been seventeen years since he last visited his hometown, and the events surrounding his leaving were still painful to think about. But this time, he was determined to lance the boil of anger that had sent him away, and that had festered in the back of his mind ever since. The emotional wound had to be reopened, drained and cauterized, he knew, if he was ever going to find the mental and emotional peace he was looking for.
"Are you ready?" she asked.
"I'm not sure," he replied. "You know how my family is. Holding a grudge rises to the level of an Olympic competition."
"I've never met your family," she said.
"Yes, I know, but you have heard that old joke about Irish Alzheimer's disease -- you forget everything but your grudges," he said. "Your grudges against those who don't fit your pattern."
"We all live in patterns," she pointed out, "and sometimes those patterns can be destructive. But there is comfort in patterns, so we tend to stay in them even when we know they are harmful for us."
"Yeah, you know the devil you've got. You don't know the devil you'll get, as my grandmother would say."
"You told me you never met your grandmother -- either one of them."
"That's true, but it's an old saying, and my grandmother probably would have said it. Anyway, I like to blame those old cliches on somebody, and a dead grandmother who I never met is as good a candidate as any."
"Are you still looking to fix blame? I thought you wanted to fix the problem."
"I do. It's just that those old sayings sound better when I attribute them to a grandmother."
The rain had let up, so he switched the wipers to the intermittent cycle.
"How much longer until we get there?"
"About another twenty minutes. Maybe more if the rain comes again."
They had been driving for three hours or so already, from the small town in the middle of Pennsylvania where he had gone in his attempt to get away from his family and their constant bickering. Not that there was anything bitter about it; most of the time it was what he called "competitive talking." He told himself that what he really wanted was a little courtesy in conversation. The word was rooted in the concept of "taking turns," after all. When someone was talking, he felt it was only right for others to be quiet and listen. And when it came his turn to talk, he felt that others should give him the same courtesy. To listen, even if they disagreed. It was a pattern that he was comfortable with.
But he had encountered too many people who insisted they were able to listen to him and to talk to someone else at the same time. It was possible, he supposed. Musicians could play the piano and talk to customers in bars at the same time. But that was different, and not all musicians could do it. Especially and most obviously wind instrument players.
The wet road glistened under the dead autumn leaves that scattered under the car.
That's a strong image, he thought. I should remember it for my next book. Who am I kidding? I don't even have a last book.
"What did you say?"
"I'm sorry. I must have been mumbling a thought that had just come to me."
"Oh. What was it?"
"Nothing, really. Just something about dead leaves."
"Anything spiritual or symbolic about it?
"Dead leaves? At this time of year? It would be spiritually symbolic if we did not have dead leaves in November."
"But we always do. And that's part of the pattern. Do you want to break the pattern?"
"Not this one, no. I see dead leaves, and it tells me that part of the world as we know it is dying. But I also know that in a few months it will be born again. I like that pattern."
"Then what was special about these leaves?"
Pause.
"They scattered as I came through."
"Like your family paying attention to you?"
"Now you're talking like a shrink."
"I am a shrink, remember?"
"But I'm not your patient. If I were, we would not have the relationship we do. So don't analyze me."
"You're right. I'm sorry. Sometimes I can't help myself. But I also want to help. I hate it when you're unhappy."
"I think I've been unhappy most of my life."
"You hide it well."
"It's called dancing. Fake it until you make it. Or self-deception. No, that's not it. I'm good at fooling others, but not myself."
"Are you sure?"
"About what?"
"Fooling yourself. And others. You don't fool me, you know."
"I know. You're closer to me than I have ever allowed anyone to get. As for fooling others, that's not really important."
"Why not?"
"You've heard me say this before. You can snow me, and that doesn't matter. But don't snow yourself. Shakespeare said something similar: To thine own self be true."
"So, are you being true to yourself?"
"I'm trying to. And I like to think I succeed, most of the time."
The rain started again, and they lapsed into silence. He switched the wipers to slow.
Zhung, zhung, zhung, zhung.
The hypnotic rhythm of the wipers lulled her into a doze. But he was driving, and could not afford that luxury. He forced himself to focus on the road, but the other side of his brain wandered off into speculation about what would happen at the family gathering. They had been apart for long enough so that separate patterns would surely have developed for each of them, and there were bound to be clashes.
But in this family, clashes were a way of life, he thought. They had always been there, even in the early years. He had grown up with them, and they were inevitable, even when they all were supposedly part of the same pattern.
Now they were all in separate, different patterns, and with few connecting links.
Culture and genetics. Heritage? How many people paid attention to that? Maybe all three were still operating together regardless of what people thought about them or whether they denied the relationships.
What's bred in the bone will out, the old saying went. Maybe DNA does dictate behavior. Identical twins, identical DNA. Even those separated at birth grow up to do almost identical things and have very similar behavior patterns. Why not an entire family, or an entire nation, or ethnic group? Be careful. Go too far down that road and you'll be called a racist.
That's the problem with the mind. It keeps working and thinking even when you want it to stop.
The mind has a mind of its own.
"What are you thinking?" she said.
"Nothing relevant," he said. "Not to what we're doing today, anyway."
But they both knew that wasn't true.
"We live in patterns," he said. "Sometimes the pattern is foisted on us by our parents or our ethnic and cultural heritage, and we either learn to live within it or we try to break out of it. The lucky ones are those who are content to stay in their patterns, or who succeed in breaking out. The not-so-lucky are those who try to break out but fail. They wind up unhappy, depressed or in jail. The really lucky ones are those who design their own patterns and coordinate them with the patterns they were born with. Either that, or they make a clean and total break and deny any ties to their heritage. But that seldom works. They're only trying to suppress what's bred in the bone. They can ignore it, but it never goes away."
"You're making it sound like a psychiatric disorder," she said. "Maybe we should submit it as a new entry for the next edition of DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Being Irish as a mental condition or syndrome bordering on the psychotic. We already have the borderline personality disorder, so we just take it one step further."
"Don't laugh," he said. "You're not far wrong. People talk about the Luck of the Irish as if it were a good thing. But the Irish themselves know better. If it weren't for bad luck, they'd have no luck at all. Or as Grandma would say, If it was raining soup, they'd be out there with forks."
"Americans are schizophrenic about their heritages," he continued. "They manage to keep the cultural parts while ignoring the political, and that's good. Trouble starts when the politics of the old country gets caught up with U.S. politics. And that's true for every group. Sometimes it's hard to break the pattern that we're born with, and identifies us as part of a group."
They both lapsed into silence.
Patterns can be linear or global, scattered, regular, or intermittent, geographic or statistical, personal or intuitive. They can be momentary and flat, like a chart, or continuous overtime, like a movie or real life.
We walk the same streets, we greet the same people, we see the same buildings, trees and flowers, and we are content. When the pattern is disrupted, however, we become confused. Our reality is altered. Our life is different, and we don't like it. Not at first, anyway. Eventually, we get used to it. Maybe.
Meanwhile, there is the shock of sudden change. Yeats had it right. When life is changed utterly, a terrible beauty is born. There is a perverse beauty in tragedy. Maybe it's because people are perverse; they are fascinated by destruction. Do they think that by destroying something they release the beauty locked inside? We see a beautiful flower growing in a field, and we pluck it out of the ground in an effort to take the beauty home with us, to possess it, to make it part of us. But soon the flower withers and dies, and its beauty is no more. We kill what we claim to love.
"Why are people so fascinated by violence and destruction?" he said aloud.
"What prompts that thought?" she said.
"I don't know; I was just rambling through my mind looking for a pattern," he said.
After he replayed his thoughts about comfort, change and the perverse beauty of tragedy, they both paused to mull over those thoughts as he drove on through the rain.
"Are you suggesting that the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima was a thing of beauty?" she said.
"The cloud itself, yes, because of its symmetry," he said. "But not what it represented -- the deaths of many thousands of people. There are pictures of mushroom clouds taken at test sites under controlled conditions where no one was hurt. Not at the time, anyway. We look at the rows of grave markers at Arlington National Cemetery and we see beauty in the symmetry even as we mourn the loss of the lives they represent. We are entranced by television coverage of hurricanes, and we see beauty in lightning during a storm, as well as in the rainbow that follows.
"Photographers have won prizes for their pictures of Normandy on June 6, 1944. There was Robert Capa's photo of a partisan taking a bullet during the Spanish Civil War. Consider the emotional power of the U.S. Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima, or the three firemen raising the flag amid the rubble of the World Trade Center. Or the lone student confronting a tank in Tienanmen Square.
"These are all scenes of terrible beauty, as Yeats put it. And they're all part of a pattern of violence -- unspeakable violence, that gave birth to that terrible beauty. And after every one of those incidents shown in the photographs, our lives were changed utterly -- again Yeats' phrase."
"But those are all morbid examples," she said. "They all refer to death. Can't we focus on the images that deal with the beauty of life? Or the beauty of love?"
"We can, and probably should," he said. "But maybe they're all of a piece, part of the same pattern. Life and death, love and loss. Life equals love, and death equals loss, and they all balance each other, like yin and yang in the Chinese pattern."
"But here's a thought," she said. "Love begins with life, but it does not end with death. Love creates life, and life needs love in order to prosper."
"A life without love is death?" he said.
"In a way, yes," she replied.
"I didn't think you were that much of a romantic," he said.
"I didn't either," she said. "Maybe it's the rain. It always makes me yearn for a comfortable chair by a fireplace with a warm blanket, something nice to drink and someone pleasant to talk with."
"You've covered all four basic elements, then," he said. "Water, fire, air and earth. You've woven all four elements into your pattern of preference."
"How do you figure four?" she said. "I only count two, fire and water."
"Easy," he said, "Talk is air, and earth is represented by the chair, the blanket and the person."
"Are you depressed?" she said suddenly.
"Now there's a segue for you," he said. "No preamble, no link, no pattern, just throw the question out and see what happens."
"Don't dodge the question. Are you?"
"No," he said. "I'm just tired. Besides, depression doesn't happen to men, only to women. Real men don't get depressed."
"You're joking, right? That's baloney and you know it."
"No, really," he insisted. "Look at the numbers. Far more women suffer from depression than men."
"Look at it another way," she countered. "Far more women are treated for depression than men. That says nothing about the number of men who suffer from depression but do not seek treatment. Men just don't want to admit they need help."
He paused. "It's part of the culture, part of the pattern. We're brought up to believe that we can do anything. That we are the providers, the protectors, the Mr. Fix-It of the family. But let's face it; this tower of strength business is a crock. Or as that great American philosopher Dirty Harry Callahan, AKA Clint Eastwood, put it: A man's got to know his limitations. And as the Kenny Rogers song goes:
You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run.
"So what's this weekend going to be like," she said, again without preamble. "Are you looking forward to it: Are you anxious about it?"
"Another masterful segue," he said. "I don't know, actually. Quiet and smooth, I hope, but that's not likely, given the history. Am I looking forward to it, and am I anxious about it? Yes, both of the above. I want to get it over with, but that feeling is mostly concern over the unknown. Once the gathering gets under way, I'll probably be comfortable. It's a little like stage fright. A lot of actors, even experienced professionals, have stage fright just before show time. But once the curtain opens, they relax and do their thing."
"Are you afraid of your family?"
"I don't think so. Angry, or at least I was for a long time. But not afraid."
"Sometimes anger is a covering substitute for fear," she said.
"Nicely put, doctor, but I thought you promised not to analyze me?"
"I'm not," she protested. "That was just a comment, an observation."
"And an accurate one," he agreed. "I'm sorry. I was being defensive. And in a way that reinforces the point. Anger is a coverup for fear -- it helps us cope."
"So the reason you get angry with your family is because you're afraid of them," she said.
"I never thought of it that way, but yes, that may be true. Sometimes, anyway. But it follows that the next questions would have to be why the fear, what do I have to be afraid of," he said.
"Very good. Now who's doing the analyzing?" she said. "Are you going to answer your own question?"
"You mean why am I afraid of them? I don't know. I'll have to think about that," he said.
"Sometimes it's useful not to think but to just keep talking -- to think aloud."
He paused again. "When I was a kid, it seemed like no one was ever listening to me. And when I did say something I thought was original or clever, whatever it was I said was put down as silly, or stupid, or dumb. And by extension, that meant that I was stupid."
"But you know otherwise," she said.
"Right, but I was so young I wasn't really sure. So I learned to be quiet and not give my opinions. Children learn quickly -- why speak up when whatever you say is going to be put down."
"Is that why you left home?"
"In a way, yes. I needed to be me, and the way things were, I wasn't allowed to be me. At least, that's the way it felt. I wasn't aware of it at the time, not on a conscious level. I just knew I had to get away. It was a matter of survival -- emotional survival, not physical. I'm sure no one in the family felt they were being abusive, and even today they would deny that they were putting me down. And I'm sure they believe that. But that's not the way it came out. Besides, I was brought up to follow my own path, regardless of what other people say or think. And as long as I wasn't breaking any laws or hurting others in any way, then I should do what I felt was right for me. So there was a conflict, I guess. I was encouraged to go my own way. But when I did, I was criticized. So I left."
"And now you're going back. Why?"
"I guess I'm hoping that by this time, the family will accept that I had to go my own way. After all, that was what I was brought up to believe -- that I could and should go my own way regardless of what anyone else says. That was OK with the family as long as the way I chose was compatible with what they felt I could or should do. But when the day came that they became part of the anybody else group, it was too much for them to deal with. So they tried to pressure me into their way, to mold me into what they felt I should be. So it was either leave or conform, and be stifled, stuffed into a mold where I knew I didn't belong and wouldn't fit. I broke their pattern I'm hoping that by this time they have opened their minds and are ready to accept me as I am. But I'm afraid they won't be able to do that."
"So you wanted me to come along as moral backup," she said.
"Yes, but you're more to me than that," he said. "You're part of my pattern, and I wouldn't have it any other way."
"Thank you," she said.
It was late afternoon and the rain had yielded to a setting sun when they arrived at the brother's home, the neutral ground agreed on for the gathering. The brother was the youngest, and the least affected by the tensions and turmoil of the early years. Or so the family thought. No one really knew what the youngest sibling felt or thought about the conflict that led to the schism.
The car settled and creaked as the engine shut down, and the driver and passenger sat silently listening to the cooling-off noises every car makes after a long trip.
"Are you ready?" she said.
"No, but I'm open. Whatever happens over the next couple of hours, I'm still going to be me. If there's no acceptance, I'll be free to leave. The way I figure it, at the end of the day, I'm all I've got."
"What about me? Is there room for me?" she said.
"Of course," he said. "But there are parts of me you may never see."
"Understood. But that just means there's a lot I haven't yet discovered," she said.
"Welcome to my life," he said.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Whorf Speed, Mr. Chomsky!
Thoughts on language.
Years ago, the linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf claimed that the language we speak dictates how we perceive reality. He based this hypothesis on his observation that Native American tribes in the American Southwest had no words for units of time, e.g. hours.
But their culture had no need to divide a day into hours, so there were no terms for such time divisions. Therefore, Whorf concluded that the people he was dealing with had no concept of time. This outlook was perpetuated in the notion of "Indian time," which held that a person would arrive when he arrived, whenever that was. But European agrarian societies in the Middle Ages worked pretty much the same way, until the advent of manufacturing and the construction of clocks in village church towers, which served to call the workers to their workplaces at specific times of the day, so they could all begin their chores at once.
Better to say that language describes, not dictates, our perception of reality. For example, American culture and the English language divides a rainbow into seven basic colors. We actually perceive more, but we use additional words for various shades. The color spectrum is continuous, and any division of it is arbitrary. Different cultures divide the visible spectrum in various ways. We happen to have seven; other languages have fewer.
Years ago, the linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf claimed that the language we speak dictates how we perceive reality. He based this hypothesis on his observation that Native American tribes in the American Southwest had no words for units of time, e.g. hours.
But their culture had no need to divide a day into hours, so there were no terms for such time divisions. Therefore, Whorf concluded that the people he was dealing with had no concept of time. This outlook was perpetuated in the notion of "Indian time," which held that a person would arrive when he arrived, whenever that was. But European agrarian societies in the Middle Ages worked pretty much the same way, until the advent of manufacturing and the construction of clocks in village church towers, which served to call the workers to their workplaces at specific times of the day, so they could all begin their chores at once.
Better to say that language describes, not dictates, our perception of reality. For example, American culture and the English language divides a rainbow into seven basic colors. We actually perceive more, but we use additional words for various shades. The color spectrum is continuous, and any division of it is arbitrary. Different cultures divide the visible spectrum in various ways. We happen to have seven; other languages have fewer.
Slowing Down
The government said today that the economy grew at only 1.6 percent in the spring, down from an earlier estmmate of 2.4 percent. That's even slower that the 3.7 percent in the first three months of the year, an an abysmal drop from 5 percent a year ago.
Can you say "double-dip" recession?
Can you say "double-dip" recession?
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Editor's Revenge Sept 09
From the archives
Editor's Revenge
Second Series
Volume I, Number 3
September, 2009
CITIZENS – "He was the son of Puerto Rican immigrants." Not so. Puerto Rico has been part of the United States for more than 100 years, since the end of the Spanish-American War. The word "immigrant" implies that someone came to America from a foreign country. But since Puerto Rico is part of the U.S., it is not, by definition, a foreign country. People in Puerto Rico send delegates to national political conventions, vote in presidential elections, and serve in the military, as do people in Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are all American citizens and carry U.S. passports. Therefore, they should not be referred to as "immigrants."
HISTORY – Spanish is not a foreign language in America, and never has been. Remember 1492 and Columbus, an Italian seaman sponsored by Queen Isabella of Spain? Keep in mind that Spanish was spoken here long before the English arrived. So was Swedish, as well as Dutch and several other languages. Also, while the English organized colonies as business ventures, settlers were recruited from Scotland, Ireland and Wales, many of whom spoke Gaelic or Welsh.
WRONG-WAY RALEIGH – A newsletter for apartment dwellers, in its history trivia section, claimed that in 1586, Sir Walter Raleigh brought tobacco to Virginia from England.
COMMENTARIAT – There is more danger to individual liberty from the Far Right than from the Liberal Left. Examples: Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, Chile under Allende. "It can't happen here," you say? Yes, it can, and very nearly did. The novel by Sinclair Lewis was fiction, but it was based on real events of the 1930s. Try reading "The Plot to Seize the White House," by Jules Archer (1973), Skyhorse Publishing, New York, 2007. It documents an attempt by corporate America to oust FDR by military force. The duty of a free press is to monitor and expose activities of government and/or any extremist group that threatens liberty.
RADIO RHETORIC – The big talkers maintain that their words do not lead others to violence; that they are only exercising their constitutional right to free speech. But words can kill. Not directly, but words have often been used to demonize and dehumanize. And when an individual or group is felt to be less than human, it becomes acceptable to beat, torture and even kill in the name of patriotism, religion or some other fanatical fervor.
PLATE STATEMENTS – From New Jersey, one of our favorites: The Unitarian clergy with UU REV on his car license plate.
AIN'T CULTURE WUNNERFUL? – Pug Mahoney suggested that Edith Wharton's novel, "The House of Mirth," should be subtitled "The Real Housewives of 1907." Sign on store window: "No Loitering. Police Take Notice." Teenagers are OK, but no cops allowed. A factory banner proclaimed "Now Firing." This stopped us for a moment, until we recognized the building as a ceramic tile factory.
HOLLYWOOD CHUTZPAH – A film studio refused to give a mime screen credit for his role in "Revenge of the Fallen" because his performance "was not a speaking part."
CREATIVE COINAGE – The CIA does not assassinate, according to former top official Cofer Black. What it does, is "engage in war-fighting, where the goal is to degrade the command and control capability" of the enemy's leadership.
BEWARE OF ABSOLUTES – A Middle East government spokesman said its security forces "never fire on innocent civilians." This can be a true statement only if one accepts the premise that there is no such entity as an "innocent" civilian.
KINDLING – An Amazon.com exec said of his firm's electronic gadget, "We think reading is an important enough activity that it deserves a purpose-driven device." And all this time, we thought that's what a book is.
CHOICE PHRASES – For a know-it-all, she has very little understanding.
At the age of 30, he was already like someone's grandfather – set in his ways.
Editor's Revenge
Second Series
Volume I, Number 3
September, 2009
CITIZENS – "He was the son of Puerto Rican immigrants." Not so. Puerto Rico has been part of the United States for more than 100 years, since the end of the Spanish-American War. The word "immigrant" implies that someone came to America from a foreign country. But since Puerto Rico is part of the U.S., it is not, by definition, a foreign country. People in Puerto Rico send delegates to national political conventions, vote in presidential elections, and serve in the military, as do people in Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are all American citizens and carry U.S. passports. Therefore, they should not be referred to as "immigrants."
HISTORY – Spanish is not a foreign language in America, and never has been. Remember 1492 and Columbus, an Italian seaman sponsored by Queen Isabella of Spain? Keep in mind that Spanish was spoken here long before the English arrived. So was Swedish, as well as Dutch and several other languages. Also, while the English organized colonies as business ventures, settlers were recruited from Scotland, Ireland and Wales, many of whom spoke Gaelic or Welsh.
WRONG-WAY RALEIGH – A newsletter for apartment dwellers, in its history trivia section, claimed that in 1586, Sir Walter Raleigh brought tobacco to Virginia from England.
COMMENTARIAT – There is more danger to individual liberty from the Far Right than from the Liberal Left. Examples: Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, Chile under Allende. "It can't happen here," you say? Yes, it can, and very nearly did. The novel by Sinclair Lewis was fiction, but it was based on real events of the 1930s. Try reading "The Plot to Seize the White House," by Jules Archer (1973), Skyhorse Publishing, New York, 2007. It documents an attempt by corporate America to oust FDR by military force. The duty of a free press is to monitor and expose activities of government and/or any extremist group that threatens liberty.
RADIO RHETORIC – The big talkers maintain that their words do not lead others to violence; that they are only exercising their constitutional right to free speech. But words can kill. Not directly, but words have often been used to demonize and dehumanize. And when an individual or group is felt to be less than human, it becomes acceptable to beat, torture and even kill in the name of patriotism, religion or some other fanatical fervor.
PLATE STATEMENTS – From New Jersey, one of our favorites: The Unitarian clergy with UU REV on his car license plate.
AIN'T CULTURE WUNNERFUL? – Pug Mahoney suggested that Edith Wharton's novel, "The House of Mirth," should be subtitled "The Real Housewives of 1907." Sign on store window: "No Loitering. Police Take Notice." Teenagers are OK, but no cops allowed. A factory banner proclaimed "Now Firing." This stopped us for a moment, until we recognized the building as a ceramic tile factory.
HOLLYWOOD CHUTZPAH – A film studio refused to give a mime screen credit for his role in "Revenge of the Fallen" because his performance "was not a speaking part."
CREATIVE COINAGE – The CIA does not assassinate, according to former top official Cofer Black. What it does, is "engage in war-fighting, where the goal is to degrade the command and control capability" of the enemy's leadership.
BEWARE OF ABSOLUTES – A Middle East government spokesman said its security forces "never fire on innocent civilians." This can be a true statement only if one accepts the premise that there is no such entity as an "innocent" civilian.
KINDLING – An Amazon.com exec said of his firm's electronic gadget, "We think reading is an important enough activity that it deserves a purpose-driven device." And all this time, we thought that's what a book is.
CHOICE PHRASES – For a know-it-all, she has very little understanding.
At the age of 30, he was already like someone's grandfather – set in his ways.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Number Crunchers
By John T. Harding
It's time to bring economics back to the real world.
Econometricians got lost in their maze of numbers, fixated on "proving" through mathematical models their assumptions about how the world works.
Numbers are useful and valuable, if they are based on real-world observations, and econometrics has a place in formulating theories and dealing with real-world problems. But to a large extent, the number crunchers hijacked the field of economics a long time ago, and got so involved in dealing with the abstract that they lost touch with the real world.
Similar mistakes are made in other fields, and the history of such practices goes back to the Euclidean Age. Deductive logic sets up a premise -- often arbitrary -- which is assumed to be true. Then the practitioner develops further statements derived from that first premise, building a system that, assuming the opening premise is true, will also be shown to be true for the real world. The practitioner then looks to the real world to gather examples that match the theoretically proven model.
The problem, however, is that while the model -- called a syllogism -- may follow all the rules of deductive logic, if the beginning premise is faulty, then the entire system is flawed. Computer programmers call it the GIGO syndrome: garbage in, garbage out.
In economics, it's better to look at the real world first, gather data and examples, look for patterns, and then set up a model using these pattern examples. This is empirical, inductive logic. In practice, if the model is correct, additional real world examples will fit the pattern, providing additional proof for the model. If the additional examples do not fit, then it's time to modify the pattern. Or, as Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, "When the facts change, so do my opinions. It shows I have learned something."
Much of economic theory is based on the ceteris paribus assumption: "Other things equal." That is, take a set of circumstances, change one, and see what happens. This also assumes that that one item, and only that one item, changes. All other items in the set do not change. The problem is that in the real world, this never happens: You can't step into the same river twice.
Another problem is in the Law of Supply and Demand, when theoreticians say that when the Supply curve and the Demand curve intersect, "the market clears," which is to say that at that point, there are no unsold goods and no unemployment. Again, in the real world, this never happens.
Both assumptions are valid when used in developing an abstract economic theory. Some of that validity -- but not all -- is lost when the theory is applied to reality.
Economists lose touch with reality when they rely too heavily on abstract theory. So also with financial economics. The wizards of Wall Street built elegant mathematical models based on assumptions that things would not change, or if they did, it would not matter. But things do change, and changes do matter.
It's time to bring economics back to the real world.
Econometricians got lost in their maze of numbers, fixated on "proving" through mathematical models their assumptions about how the world works.
Numbers are useful and valuable, if they are based on real-world observations, and econometrics has a place in formulating theories and dealing with real-world problems. But to a large extent, the number crunchers hijacked the field of economics a long time ago, and got so involved in dealing with the abstract that they lost touch with the real world.
Similar mistakes are made in other fields, and the history of such practices goes back to the Euclidean Age. Deductive logic sets up a premise -- often arbitrary -- which is assumed to be true. Then the practitioner develops further statements derived from that first premise, building a system that, assuming the opening premise is true, will also be shown to be true for the real world. The practitioner then looks to the real world to gather examples that match the theoretically proven model.
The problem, however, is that while the model -- called a syllogism -- may follow all the rules of deductive logic, if the beginning premise is faulty, then the entire system is flawed. Computer programmers call it the GIGO syndrome: garbage in, garbage out.
In economics, it's better to look at the real world first, gather data and examples, look for patterns, and then set up a model using these pattern examples. This is empirical, inductive logic. In practice, if the model is correct, additional real world examples will fit the pattern, providing additional proof for the model. If the additional examples do not fit, then it's time to modify the pattern. Or, as Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, "When the facts change, so do my opinions. It shows I have learned something."
Much of economic theory is based on the ceteris paribus assumption: "Other things equal." That is, take a set of circumstances, change one, and see what happens. This also assumes that that one item, and only that one item, changes. All other items in the set do not change. The problem is that in the real world, this never happens: You can't step into the same river twice.
Another problem is in the Law of Supply and Demand, when theoreticians say that when the Supply curve and the Demand curve intersect, "the market clears," which is to say that at that point, there are no unsold goods and no unemployment. Again, in the real world, this never happens.
Both assumptions are valid when used in developing an abstract economic theory. Some of that validity -- but not all -- is lost when the theory is applied to reality.
Economists lose touch with reality when they rely too heavily on abstract theory. So also with financial economics. The wizards of Wall Street built elegant mathematical models based on assumptions that things would not change, or if they did, it would not matter. But things do change, and changes do matter.
The Wolf Who Came Back
A Fable for Our Time
By John T. Harding
There is a spirit of place, a specialness about a city or a countryside that makes it different. That sense of specialness comes in large part from the people who live there, and with the blend of cultures they bring with them and add to the mix.
But some part of the specialness comes from the place itself -- the hills, the trees, the air, the water, the weather, the animals ... even those long gone. Their spirits remain.
Wolf was driven from the Eastern Woodlands many decades ago, and the red squirrel was replaced by the European grey.
But their spirits remain, and watch.
This is a story about a wolf who came back.
Chapter 1
The Road to the Island
Wind never lied. Wind always carried messages truthfully, good news or bad, and Wolf had learned as a pup to trust his nose at least as much as his eyes and ears. Sometimes more, because Wind carried smells of things and of creatures that Wolf could not see or hear. And carried them farther, too, well beyond the limits of his sight or his hearing. Eyes were good at catching movement, but if the enemy or prey kept still and made no sound, neither eyes nor ears were enough to alert Wolf.
But smell was different. No matter how still or quiet a creature was, Wind carried the message to Wolf even when he was asleep. The creature was there, Wind would say, even though Wolf could not see or hear it. The only problem was direction. It was sometimes hard to tell, especially if Wind was still or slow. But even then, Wolf could often tell the direction and even the distance by the strength of the smell. Wind could also be a friend and ally when Wolf was hunting. If he was downwind, he could stalk his prey and get near enough to close in before the target knew he was there. Few creatures other than Wolf had learned the advantage of staying downwind. His cousin Coyote knew it, and he had heard that his enemy Man knew it. He wasn't sure, because he had always stayed well clear of Man, watching from as far away as he could. But he had not seen Man for a long time, and he was far from his usual territory. He was still wary, because he was now in territory that had all the markings of having been used by Man. But where was Man?
Man was gone. Where or why, Wolf did not know or care, but he was still wary. Even so, Wind kept assuring him that it was safe. Man was not here. Wind never lied, but Wolf was still wary.
He was entering new territory now, after spending many days wandering toward the morning sun. Early morning was a good time to hunt in these forests. The woods were not thick, like they were at home, where the afternoon sun slept behind the mountains. And there were plenty of fields next to the wooded areas, so Wolf could stay behind the trees as he worked his way toward the deer browsing in the fields. By staying downwind and using the skills honed from years of hunting, Wolf could get very close to his prey, before rushing in for the kill. This was good, because he did not have a partner to help him run down the target and prevent it from swerving away. In this new territory, deer did not have to slow down when they reached the trees.
But the best places to hunt in this new territory were the places where Man had abandoned his dens. Men were strange creatures, Wolf knew, and even more strange were the dens they made. The dens Man made were not nestled in the comfort of Mother Earth, but were strange, ugly contraptions sitting on top of her. To make the dens, Man cut down trees and gathered stones, dumping them together and stacking them in great piles, as if he wanted to punish the Earth Mother. But for what, Wolf did not know. It was as if Man had forgotten he and the Earth Mother were one. By punishing the Earth Mother, Man was risking her wrath. Maybe that was why Wolf had not seen Man -- Earth Mother punished Man.
No matter. Deer liked to feed near the dens Man had made. This new territory was a mix of woodland, where deer spent the day resting, and open space, where the best shrubs grew next to the man-dens.
Wolf soon learned that he could get close to the deer by moving along behind the piles of stone that marked man-den territory boundaries. Wolf thought it was strange that Man had to move stones into great long piles to mark his territory, rather than marking the stones where they lay, the way four-foots did. His brother wolves all did it. Fox and Coyote did it, even Deer and Cat and that stupid cousin Dog did it. Man never even came out of his den to mark his territory; why did he stay inside and soil his own den? Instead of marking his territory properly, as any real creature did, Man piled up rocks and broke trees, knocked them down and left them. What strange creatures. No wonder they went away.
(more)
By John T. Harding
There is a spirit of place, a specialness about a city or a countryside that makes it different. That sense of specialness comes in large part from the people who live there, and with the blend of cultures they bring with them and add to the mix.
But some part of the specialness comes from the place itself -- the hills, the trees, the air, the water, the weather, the animals ... even those long gone. Their spirits remain.
Wolf was driven from the Eastern Woodlands many decades ago, and the red squirrel was replaced by the European grey.
But their spirits remain, and watch.
This is a story about a wolf who came back.
Chapter 1
The Road to the Island
Wind never lied. Wind always carried messages truthfully, good news or bad, and Wolf had learned as a pup to trust his nose at least as much as his eyes and ears. Sometimes more, because Wind carried smells of things and of creatures that Wolf could not see or hear. And carried them farther, too, well beyond the limits of his sight or his hearing. Eyes were good at catching movement, but if the enemy or prey kept still and made no sound, neither eyes nor ears were enough to alert Wolf.
But smell was different. No matter how still or quiet a creature was, Wind carried the message to Wolf even when he was asleep. The creature was there, Wind would say, even though Wolf could not see or hear it. The only problem was direction. It was sometimes hard to tell, especially if Wind was still or slow. But even then, Wolf could often tell the direction and even the distance by the strength of the smell. Wind could also be a friend and ally when Wolf was hunting. If he was downwind, he could stalk his prey and get near enough to close in before the target knew he was there. Few creatures other than Wolf had learned the advantage of staying downwind. His cousin Coyote knew it, and he had heard that his enemy Man knew it. He wasn't sure, because he had always stayed well clear of Man, watching from as far away as he could. But he had not seen Man for a long time, and he was far from his usual territory. He was still wary, because he was now in territory that had all the markings of having been used by Man. But where was Man?
Man was gone. Where or why, Wolf did not know or care, but he was still wary. Even so, Wind kept assuring him that it was safe. Man was not here. Wind never lied, but Wolf was still wary.
He was entering new territory now, after spending many days wandering toward the morning sun. Early morning was a good time to hunt in these forests. The woods were not thick, like they were at home, where the afternoon sun slept behind the mountains. And there were plenty of fields next to the wooded areas, so Wolf could stay behind the trees as he worked his way toward the deer browsing in the fields. By staying downwind and using the skills honed from years of hunting, Wolf could get very close to his prey, before rushing in for the kill. This was good, because he did not have a partner to help him run down the target and prevent it from swerving away. In this new territory, deer did not have to slow down when they reached the trees.
But the best places to hunt in this new territory were the places where Man had abandoned his dens. Men were strange creatures, Wolf knew, and even more strange were the dens they made. The dens Man made were not nestled in the comfort of Mother Earth, but were strange, ugly contraptions sitting on top of her. To make the dens, Man cut down trees and gathered stones, dumping them together and stacking them in great piles, as if he wanted to punish the Earth Mother. But for what, Wolf did not know. It was as if Man had forgotten he and the Earth Mother were one. By punishing the Earth Mother, Man was risking her wrath. Maybe that was why Wolf had not seen Man -- Earth Mother punished Man.
No matter. Deer liked to feed near the dens Man had made. This new territory was a mix of woodland, where deer spent the day resting, and open space, where the best shrubs grew next to the man-dens.
Wolf soon learned that he could get close to the deer by moving along behind the piles of stone that marked man-den territory boundaries. Wolf thought it was strange that Man had to move stones into great long piles to mark his territory, rather than marking the stones where they lay, the way four-foots did. His brother wolves all did it. Fox and Coyote did it, even Deer and Cat and that stupid cousin Dog did it. Man never even came out of his den to mark his territory; why did he stay inside and soil his own den? Instead of marking his territory properly, as any real creature did, Man piled up rocks and broke trees, knocked them down and left them. What strange creatures. No wonder they went away.
(more)
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Obama's Religion
By John T. Harding
August 2010
Right-wing rantings often cite the Bill of Rights as a basis for their challenges and demands that the rest of the country fall in line with their views. But the claim that President Obama may be unfit for office because of his heritage is both shameful and un-American, especially when applied to spiritual beliefs.
The First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Religion, as it should. But often forgotten or ignored by the ranters is that the main body of the Constitution guarantees freedom from religion. Article VI, paragraph three of the Constitution specifically states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust." Therefore, to demand that the President prove that he is a Christian, or to at least prove that he is not a Muslim, is unconstitutional.
To mix politics and religion is always dangerous, and often covers an insidious attempt to force the beliefs of a few on the rights of the many. The Founders knew of this danger, based on the reality that English law at the time prohibited anyone not a member of the Anglican church from holding office, or even from attending Oxford or Cambridge universities, which were the primary source of doctors and lawyers in the country. No Catholics need apply, and as for being Jewish, forget about it. (Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th Century political giant, was born in a Jewish family, but converted.)
Rev. Franklin Graham's claim that Obama was born a Muslim because his father was a Muslim ignores the fact that the father disavowed Islam before Barack was born. The claim is spurious, because it makes religion a matter of genetics, not choice. Moreover, young Barack was raised by his mother and grandparents, and did not even meet his father until he was nearly a teenager.
August 2010
Right-wing rantings often cite the Bill of Rights as a basis for their challenges and demands that the rest of the country fall in line with their views. But the claim that President Obama may be unfit for office because of his heritage is both shameful and un-American, especially when applied to spiritual beliefs.
The First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Religion, as it should. But often forgotten or ignored by the ranters is that the main body of the Constitution guarantees freedom from religion. Article VI, paragraph three of the Constitution specifically states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust." Therefore, to demand that the President prove that he is a Christian, or to at least prove that he is not a Muslim, is unconstitutional.
To mix politics and religion is always dangerous, and often covers an insidious attempt to force the beliefs of a few on the rights of the many. The Founders knew of this danger, based on the reality that English law at the time prohibited anyone not a member of the Anglican church from holding office, or even from attending Oxford or Cambridge universities, which were the primary source of doctors and lawyers in the country. No Catholics need apply, and as for being Jewish, forget about it. (Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th Century political giant, was born in a Jewish family, but converted.)
Rev. Franklin Graham's claim that Obama was born a Muslim because his father was a Muslim ignores the fact that the father disavowed Islam before Barack was born. The claim is spurious, because it makes religion a matter of genetics, not choice. Moreover, young Barack was raised by his mother and grandparents, and did not even meet his father until he was nearly a teenager.
Monday, August 23, 2010
From the Great Depression to the Great Recession
The following apeared in the Spring, 2010, edition of Phi Kappa Phi Forum, the quarterly magazne of the National Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi
From the Great Depression to the Great Recession
By John T. Harding
When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt began his economic recovery program for the nation soon after taking office in spring 1933, he used several methods to combat the Great Depression that President Barack Obama has been adapting to counteract the recent Great Recession.
Did government stimulus efforts work then, and are they working now? The answer is a qualified “yes, but ...”
Output of goods and services improved in the 1930s, but because a banking crisis accompanied the downturn, the jobless rate was slow to catch up.
That scenario, experts say, applies today.
Similar causes, similar effects
The Great Depression began with a collapse of the financial markets, from stocks to banks and beyond, just as the Great Recession started with “irrational exuberance” — as former United States Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan notably put it — in credit markets, which led to bank failures and housing crises and more.
After the financial well went dry in the 1930s, FDR primed the pump of the economy through expenditures, following the precepts of economist John Maynard Keynes, who argued that the government could spend the country out of its doldrums. Examples included the Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, road and bridge construction, and a program for artists and writers.
In the wake of the recent downturn, President Obama based his economic stimulus program on similar principles. Again, road and bridge construction projects are playing a major role. Also, there are bonus payments to Social Security recipients and tax credits to homebuyers; plus, the “Cash for Clunkers” program benefited the auto industry.
Production of goods and services did improve in the 1930s. After the 1929 stock market crash, output fell by more than 40 percent, but by 1935, it recovered somewhat, to an estimated $73.3 billion, after having tumbled to $56.4 billion in 1933. (Output had been at $103.6 billion in 1929.)
The employment picture, however, remained bleak — FDR’s policies resulting in a “jobless recovery.” In 1933, unemployment was about 25 percent; in the immediate years following FDR’s stimulus initiatives, it was still high at 20 percent. (Economists differ on the acceptable unemployment rate. At one time, 5 to 7 percent was the norm; now, it’s about 4 percent.)
Will the same thing happen again? Experts say probably.
In the current decline, output, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP, which calculates the dollar value of all goods and services produced over a certain period), has improved. As 2007 ended, output topped out at $14.4 trillion. It declined through 2008 and most of 2009, before gaining 3.5 percent in the third quarter.
But unemployment has risen from the 5 percent range in 2006 to upwards of 10 percent three years later. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, an authority on the Great Depression, warned in November 2009 that high unemployment is likely to continue through 2010.
The problem stems from changes in the labor market and the systemic banking crisis — echoing the Great Depression — contend economists Edward S. Knotek II and Stephen Terry of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Economic Review, Third Quarter 2009, Vol. 94, No. 3).
The jobless rate will stay at about 10 percent for the rest of this year before fading to 9.2 percent in 2011 and 8.3 percent in 2012 — still too high — according to 41 economists surveyed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia late last year.
The same survey forecasted a GDP recovery rate of only 2.3 percent for 2010, 2.9 percent for 2011 and 3.2 percent for 2012.
This combination mirrors the 1930s: slow growth in output and a high jobless rate.
Shortsighted thinking then and now
After an initial surge in the economy facilitated by government spending, FDR turned off the money pump, being persuaded that recovery was well enough along. Yet many economic historians claim that was a mistake and resulted in a second decline in 1937, with production falling again.
Today, too, “there is a more modest view of how much fiscal stimulus can produce because public debt can crowd out private investment,” Phillip LeBel, Professor of Economics at Montclair State University, said in an interview.
In other words, if government finances its projects with bonds at a higher interest rate than the private sector offers, investors will buy government securities — which are safer — and there is less money available for corporate use. To make matters worse, even local bankers say certificate of deposit rates are not likely to improve for another year. Thus, consumers are paying down credit card debt instead of saving or spending.
Moreover, firms are slow to hire during a downturn until they see a sustained pattern of recovery, LeBel added.
So while encouraging signs suggested the economy had bottomed out by fall 2009, this spring the nation may still travel a bumpy road.
As Bernanke predicted in his 2000 book, Essays on the Great Depression:
Those who doubt that there is much connection between the economy of the 1930s and the supercharged, information-age economy of the twenty-first century are invited to look at the current economic headlines — about high unemployment, failing banks, volatile financial markets, currency crises, and even deflation. The issues raised by the Depression, and its lessons, are still relevant today.
From the Great Depression to the Great Recession
By John T. Harding
When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt began his economic recovery program for the nation soon after taking office in spring 1933, he used several methods to combat the Great Depression that President Barack Obama has been adapting to counteract the recent Great Recession.
Did government stimulus efforts work then, and are they working now? The answer is a qualified “yes, but ...”
Output of goods and services improved in the 1930s, but because a banking crisis accompanied the downturn, the jobless rate was slow to catch up.
That scenario, experts say, applies today.
Similar causes, similar effects
The Great Depression began with a collapse of the financial markets, from stocks to banks and beyond, just as the Great Recession started with “irrational exuberance” — as former United States Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan notably put it — in credit markets, which led to bank failures and housing crises and more.
After the financial well went dry in the 1930s, FDR primed the pump of the economy through expenditures, following the precepts of economist John Maynard Keynes, who argued that the government could spend the country out of its doldrums. Examples included the Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, road and bridge construction, and a program for artists and writers.
In the wake of the recent downturn, President Obama based his economic stimulus program on similar principles. Again, road and bridge construction projects are playing a major role. Also, there are bonus payments to Social Security recipients and tax credits to homebuyers; plus, the “Cash for Clunkers” program benefited the auto industry.
Production of goods and services did improve in the 1930s. After the 1929 stock market crash, output fell by more than 40 percent, but by 1935, it recovered somewhat, to an estimated $73.3 billion, after having tumbled to $56.4 billion in 1933. (Output had been at $103.6 billion in 1929.)
The employment picture, however, remained bleak — FDR’s policies resulting in a “jobless recovery.” In 1933, unemployment was about 25 percent; in the immediate years following FDR’s stimulus initiatives, it was still high at 20 percent. (Economists differ on the acceptable unemployment rate. At one time, 5 to 7 percent was the norm; now, it’s about 4 percent.)
Will the same thing happen again? Experts say probably.
In the current decline, output, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP, which calculates the dollar value of all goods and services produced over a certain period), has improved. As 2007 ended, output topped out at $14.4 trillion. It declined through 2008 and most of 2009, before gaining 3.5 percent in the third quarter.
But unemployment has risen from the 5 percent range in 2006 to upwards of 10 percent three years later. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, an authority on the Great Depression, warned in November 2009 that high unemployment is likely to continue through 2010.
The problem stems from changes in the labor market and the systemic banking crisis — echoing the Great Depression — contend economists Edward S. Knotek II and Stephen Terry of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Economic Review, Third Quarter 2009, Vol. 94, No. 3).
The jobless rate will stay at about 10 percent for the rest of this year before fading to 9.2 percent in 2011 and 8.3 percent in 2012 — still too high — according to 41 economists surveyed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia late last year.
The same survey forecasted a GDP recovery rate of only 2.3 percent for 2010, 2.9 percent for 2011 and 3.2 percent for 2012.
This combination mirrors the 1930s: slow growth in output and a high jobless rate.
Shortsighted thinking then and now
After an initial surge in the economy facilitated by government spending, FDR turned off the money pump, being persuaded that recovery was well enough along. Yet many economic historians claim that was a mistake and resulted in a second decline in 1937, with production falling again.
Today, too, “there is a more modest view of how much fiscal stimulus can produce because public debt can crowd out private investment,” Phillip LeBel, Professor of Economics at Montclair State University, said in an interview.
In other words, if government finances its projects with bonds at a higher interest rate than the private sector offers, investors will buy government securities — which are safer — and there is less money available for corporate use. To make matters worse, even local bankers say certificate of deposit rates are not likely to improve for another year. Thus, consumers are paying down credit card debt instead of saving or spending.
Moreover, firms are slow to hire during a downturn until they see a sustained pattern of recovery, LeBel added.
So while encouraging signs suggested the economy had bottomed out by fall 2009, this spring the nation may still travel a bumpy road.
As Bernanke predicted in his 2000 book, Essays on the Great Depression:
Those who doubt that there is much connection between the economy of the 1930s and the supercharged, information-age economy of the twenty-first century are invited to look at the current economic headlines — about high unemployment, failing banks, volatile financial markets, currency crises, and even deflation. The issues raised by the Depression, and its lessons, are still relevant today.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
ER for July 2010
From the archives
By John T. Harding
Second Series
Volume II, Number 4
July, 2010
BEWARE OF ABSOLUTES -- The $100 bill is "the highest value of all U.S. bills." Or so said The Associated Press. Not so. There are bills in denominations of $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000. And while they were discontinued in 1969, there are still some in the hands of collectors, and are still legal tender. The government also made bills denominated $100,000, but these were for use only for transactions between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
SOUND AND FURY -- Dinty Ramble objected to the nasal allergy commercial that claims the product "combats the cause." Of course. If it didn't, it would be of no value. And there's the gadget that claims if you plug it into your car radio system, you can use your cell phone, and talk safely while driving. It's not the gadget that causes distracted driving, it's the act of talking. Remember the signs on buses that said "Do not talk to driver while vehicle is in motion"?
HASTY HEADLINES -- Or, beware the obvious. "Suicidal tendencies can be fatal."
TOO BROKE TO PAY ATTENTION -- ABC-TV outlet in Philly touted a story about thieves "who stole $500 million in priceless art works." If they're priceless, where did the dollar figure come from?
GLEANINGS of an Itinerant Speller -- Respitory; "a huge menu to please any pallet"; "miniature Doberman pincher." "Forecasted" does not need the extraneous -ed ending. The verb is "forecast" in both present and past tense.
HYPHEN MAVEN HAVEN -- The rules of hyphenation, including where to break a word at the end of a line -- are relatively few and simple. So much so that a computer can be taught them. However, computers do not yet know semantics. The meaning of a word, especially one that has several conjoined parts, can dictate where a word should be split. Examples from daily newspapers recently include these: green-skeeper, new-spaper, and la-cebark. This last word referred to a type of elm tree, and appeared on Page one of the Philadelphia Inquirer. But the worst recent example came from the New York Times, where the computer produced this: th-ere. And from across the pond comes this example: Ma-rtin.
THANKS BRO -- The above thought were prompted by a message from Jim: "I have noticed in recent times that the usage of hyphenation seems to have discarded all the rules that I was taught when in school. There were not very many rules to remember, which made it simple. If hyphenation could be avoided, then that was the preferred option; one rule was to only hyphenate between syllables, another was to avoid hyphenating someone's name. If a name needed to be broken up, then the rule of syllables still applied. Rules can be put into computers and they are very good at following them, so word processing does not seem to be the source of this situation."
REPLY -- This has been an issue for me ever since the advent of computers. Yes, it is possible to program the few hyphenation rules into a computer, but there are also thousands of exceptions that a computer cannot know. Early on, I noticed that a computer hyphenated "newspaper" by following the rule governing consonant clusters: Break after the first consonant. This, of course, resulted in "new-spaper." Compounds always seem to give the machine problems. In your example, the rule (as I remember it) is to break after a vowel and before a consonant, so the machine did, in fact, follow the rule. You're right that rules can be put into computers, and computers are very good at following them. The machine will do exactly what it is told to do. No more, and no less. Until machines can be taught semantics -- the meanings of words -- human oversight is essential. Another problem is defining what constitutes a syllable; people do it almost instinctively. Machines must be taught by prescribing rules. But the ability to think remains a human trait. How do you tell a machine which word is a name and which is not? In addition
to the set of rules, computers I have dealt with also consult a lexicon to double-check for appropriate hyphenation. But it still requires human intervention to keep feeding new words into the lexicon. GIGO still applies.
Editor's Revenge is a free newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Logomachist: J.T. Harding. To subscribe, send your email address to: jtharding39@gmail.com or to editorsrevenge@gmail.com.
By John T. Harding
Second Series
Volume II, Number 4
July, 2010
BEWARE OF ABSOLUTES -- The $100 bill is "the highest value of all U.S. bills." Or so said The Associated Press. Not so. There are bills in denominations of $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000. And while they were discontinued in 1969, there are still some in the hands of collectors, and are still legal tender. The government also made bills denominated $100,000, but these were for use only for transactions between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
SOUND AND FURY -- Dinty Ramble objected to the nasal allergy commercial that claims the product "combats the cause." Of course. If it didn't, it would be of no value. And there's the gadget that claims if you plug it into your car radio system, you can use your cell phone, and talk safely while driving. It's not the gadget that causes distracted driving, it's the act of talking. Remember the signs on buses that said "Do not talk to driver while vehicle is in motion"?
HASTY HEADLINES -- Or, beware the obvious. "Suicidal tendencies can be fatal."
TOO BROKE TO PAY ATTENTION -- ABC-TV outlet in Philly touted a story about thieves "who stole $500 million in priceless art works." If they're priceless, where did the dollar figure come from?
GLEANINGS of an Itinerant Speller -- Respitory; "a huge menu to please any pallet"; "miniature Doberman pincher." "Forecasted" does not need the extraneous -ed ending. The verb is "forecast" in both present and past tense.
HYPHEN MAVEN HAVEN -- The rules of hyphenation, including where to break a word at the end of a line -- are relatively few and simple. So much so that a computer can be taught them. However, computers do not yet know semantics. The meaning of a word, especially one that has several conjoined parts, can dictate where a word should be split. Examples from daily newspapers recently include these: green-skeeper, new-spaper, and la-cebark. This last word referred to a type of elm tree, and appeared on Page one of the Philadelphia Inquirer. But the worst recent example came from the New York Times, where the computer produced this: th-ere. And from across the pond comes this example: Ma-rtin.
THANKS BRO -- The above thought were prompted by a message from Jim: "I have noticed in recent times that the usage of hyphenation seems to have discarded all the rules that I was taught when in school. There were not very many rules to remember, which made it simple. If hyphenation could be avoided, then that was the preferred option; one rule was to only hyphenate between syllables, another was to avoid hyphenating someone's name. If a name needed to be broken up, then the rule of syllables still applied. Rules can be put into computers and they are very good at following them, so word processing does not seem to be the source of this situation."
REPLY -- This has been an issue for me ever since the advent of computers. Yes, it is possible to program the few hyphenation rules into a computer, but there are also thousands of exceptions that a computer cannot know. Early on, I noticed that a computer hyphenated "newspaper" by following the rule governing consonant clusters: Break after the first consonant. This, of course, resulted in "new-spaper." Compounds always seem to give the machine problems. In your example, the rule (as I remember it) is to break after a vowel and before a consonant, so the machine did, in fact, follow the rule. You're right that rules can be put into computers, and computers are very good at following them. The machine will do exactly what it is told to do. No more, and no less. Until machines can be taught semantics -- the meanings of words -- human oversight is essential. Another problem is defining what constitutes a syllable; people do it almost instinctively. Machines must be taught by prescribing rules. But the ability to think remains a human trait. How do you tell a machine which word is a name and which is not? In addition
to the set of rules, computers I have dealt with also consult a lexicon to double-check for appropriate hyphenation. But it still requires human intervention to keep feeding new words into the lexicon. GIGO still applies.
Editor's Revenge is a free newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Logomachist: J.T. Harding. To subscribe, send your email address to: jtharding39@gmail.com or to editorsrevenge@gmail.com.
Demonizing Liberals
By John T Harding
To be a liberal is to use the ability to think for yourself, to consider evidence and to decide for yourself the truth of any given idea or concept. To accept as true an idea or concept solely on the authority of another is faith, not reason. And that's OK. There are some concepts that are impossible to prove by reason, and can only be accepted on faith.
The Founders of American democracy were men of the Age of Enlightenment, heavily influenced by such thinkers as David Hume, Locke, Thomas Reid and Adam Smith.
(It's no coincidence that Smith's best known work, "The Wealth of Nations," was published in 1776. But Smith wrote on many other topics besides economics, including ethics, religion, politics, law, history, language and science.)
In an enlightened society, freedom is the ability to publish one's thoughts and "to lay them open to public criticism by others and to respond publicly to their criticism" (Alexander Broadie, ed. "The Scottish Enlightenment, An Anthology, Edinburgh, 1997) . This is what the Founders of American democracy meant by Freedom of Speech and of the Press.
Religion is based on Faith, the willingness to accept without question the truth of something on the word of another; things that cannot be proven, or things that pass all understanding.
Science is based on Reason, the willingness to accept as true only things for which there is evidence, which can be questioned and tested.
Liberals see no conflict between the two.
During the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment, educated people questioned everything, probed for evidence, and decided for themselves whether to accept something as true. They were liberals in the sense that they were liberated from the obligation to accept as true whatever authority figures told them was true.
Conservatives then, as now, insisted that everyone accept authoritarian truth without question. Disagreement then , as now, was not allowed.
Among liberals, disagreement and discussion was and is not only allowed, but encouraged.
When lawyers have the law on their side, they argue the law. When they have facts on their side, they argue facts. When they have neither, they pound the table.
Today's American Tories pound the table and resort to name-calling, demonizing those who dare to disagree.
Or, to quote that great Enlightenment philosopher Chico Marx: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
To be a liberal is to use the ability to think for yourself, to consider evidence and to decide for yourself the truth of any given idea or concept. To accept as true an idea or concept solely on the authority of another is faith, not reason. And that's OK. There are some concepts that are impossible to prove by reason, and can only be accepted on faith.
The Founders of American democracy were men of the Age of Enlightenment, heavily influenced by such thinkers as David Hume, Locke, Thomas Reid and Adam Smith.
(It's no coincidence that Smith's best known work, "The Wealth of Nations," was published in 1776. But Smith wrote on many other topics besides economics, including ethics, religion, politics, law, history, language and science.)
In an enlightened society, freedom is the ability to publish one's thoughts and "to lay them open to public criticism by others and to respond publicly to their criticism" (Alexander Broadie, ed. "The Scottish Enlightenment, An Anthology, Edinburgh, 1997) . This is what the Founders of American democracy meant by Freedom of Speech and of the Press.
Religion is based on Faith, the willingness to accept without question the truth of something on the word of another; things that cannot be proven, or things that pass all understanding.
Science is based on Reason, the willingness to accept as true only things for which there is evidence, which can be questioned and tested.
Liberals see no conflict between the two.
During the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment, educated people questioned everything, probed for evidence, and decided for themselves whether to accept something as true. They were liberals in the sense that they were liberated from the obligation to accept as true whatever authority figures told them was true.
Conservatives then, as now, insisted that everyone accept authoritarian truth without question. Disagreement then , as now, was not allowed.
Among liberals, disagreement and discussion was and is not only allowed, but encouraged.
When lawyers have the law on their side, they argue the law. When they have facts on their side, they argue facts. When they have neither, they pound the table.
Today's American Tories pound the table and resort to name-calling, demonizing those who dare to disagree.
Or, to quote that great Enlightenment philosopher Chico Marx: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
ER for August 2010
By John T Harding
Second Series
Volume II, Number 5
August, 2010
UBER DONE -- For decades, writers have been cautioned to stick with standard English whenever possible, and to avoid foreign words and phrases. Too often, however, a word or phrase catches on among denizens of the craft, and is stuck in whenever possible, plausible or even realistic. And while it may be a clever usage the first few times, it quickly grows stale from excessive use. Such is the fate of the German "uber," which in recent weeks has struck the New York Times newsroom like a virus, complete with umlaut, the double-dot over the letter u. There was a time, in the years BC (Before Computers) that daily newspapers had to avoid foreign usages, because special characters such as the umlaut were not available on Linotype machines. But now, the special sense of accomplishment that comes with being able to foist erudition upon readers has infected too many writers. As a result, we see such phrases as "uber-rich." Perhaps I'm being uber-sensitive to the uber-use of a word or phrase, and I worry about a steak being uber-done, or the weather being uber-cast. But good writers keep in mind that when an English equivalent is available, use it. In the case of "uber" the English equivalent -- and linguistically similar word -- is "over." A close relative is the English word "super," which is the form used when translating Nietzsche's concept of the "uber-mensch." Except that the philosopher was not thinking of Clark Kent as the Superman, but as a man who was above other men, philosophically and morally.
HYPHEN WATCH -- The rules say to break a word and insert a hyphen between syllables. But many word processing systems still don't know what constitutes a syllable, so it's up to human intervention to tell them. Recent examples of mis-broken words: "Tran-sport" from The Economist in a story about railroads in America, and "businesspe-ople" from Page 1 of the Sunday New York Times.
____________________________________________________________________
Editor's Revenge is a free newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Logomachist: J.T. Harding.
Second Series
Volume II, Number 5
August, 2010
UBER DONE -- For decades, writers have been cautioned to stick with standard English whenever possible, and to avoid foreign words and phrases. Too often, however, a word or phrase catches on among denizens of the craft, and is stuck in whenever possible, plausible or even realistic. And while it may be a clever usage the first few times, it quickly grows stale from excessive use. Such is the fate of the German "uber," which in recent weeks has struck the New York Times newsroom like a virus, complete with umlaut, the double-dot over the letter u. There was a time, in the years BC (Before Computers) that daily newspapers had to avoid foreign usages, because special characters such as the umlaut were not available on Linotype machines. But now, the special sense of accomplishment that comes with being able to foist erudition upon readers has infected too many writers. As a result, we see such phrases as "uber-rich." Perhaps I'm being uber-sensitive to the uber-use of a word or phrase, and I worry about a steak being uber-done, or the weather being uber-cast. But good writers keep in mind that when an English equivalent is available, use it. In the case of "uber" the English equivalent -- and linguistically similar word -- is "over." A close relative is the English word "super," which is the form used when translating Nietzsche's concept of the "uber-mensch." Except that the philosopher was not thinking of Clark Kent as the Superman, but as a man who was above other men, philosophically and morally.
HYPHEN WATCH -- The rules say to break a word and insert a hyphen between syllables. But many word processing systems still don't know what constitutes a syllable, so it's up to human intervention to tell them. Recent examples of mis-broken words: "Tran-sport" from The Economist in a story about railroads in America, and "businesspe-ople" from Page 1 of the Sunday New York Times.
____________________________________________________________________
Editor's Revenge is a free newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Logomachist: J.T. Harding.
Beware of Absolutes
Editor's Revenge

By John T Harding
Second Series
Volume II, Number 4
July, 2010
BEWARE OF ABSOLUTES -- The $100 bill is "the highest value of all U.S. bills." Or so said The Associated Press. Not so. There are bills in denominations of $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000. And while they were discontinued in 1969, there are still some in the hands of collectors, and are still legal tender. The government also made bills denominated $100,000, but these were for use only for transactions between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
SOUND AND FURY -- Dinty Ramble objected to the nasal allergy commercial that claims the product "combats the cause." Of course. If it didn't, it would be of no value. And there's the gadget that claims if you plug it into your car radio system, you can use your cell phone, and talk safely while driving. It's not the gadget that causes distracted driving, it's the act of talking. Remember the signs on buses that said "Do not talk to driver while vehicle is in motion"?
HASTY HEADLINES -- Or, beware the obvious. "Suicidal tendencies can be fatal."
TOO BROKE TO PAY ATTENTION -- ABC-TV outlet in Philly touted a story about thieves "who stole $500 million in priceless art works." If they're priceless, where did the dollar figure come from?
GLEANINGS of an Itinerant Speller -- Respitory; "a huge menu to please any pallet"; "miniature Doberman pincher." "Forecasted" does not need the extraneous -ed ending. The verb is "forecast" in both present and past tense.
HYPHEN MAVEN HAVEN -- The rules of hyphenation, including where to break a word at the end of a line -- are relatively few and simple. So much so that a computer can be taught them. However, computers do not yet know semantics. The meaning of a word, especially one that has several conjoined parts, can dictate where a word should be split. Examples from daily newspapers recently include these: green-skeeper, new-spaper, and la-cebark. This last word referred to a type of elm tree, and appeared on Page one of the Philadelphia Inquirer. But the worst recent example came from the New York Times, where the computer produced this: th-ere. And from across the pond comes this example: Ma-rtin.
THANKS BRO -- The above thought were prompted by a message from Jim: "I have noticed in recent times that the usage of hyphenation seems to have discarded all the rules that I was taught when in school. There were not very many rules to remember, which made it simple. If hyphenation could be avoided, then that was the preferred option; one rule was to only hyphenate between syllables, another was to avoid hyphenating someone's name. If a name needed to be broken up, then the rule of syllables still applied. Rules can be put into computers and they are very good at following them, so word processing does not seem to be the source of this situation."
REPLY -- This has been an issue for me ever since the advent of computers. Yes, it is possible to program the few hyphenation rules into a computer, but there are also thousands of exceptions that a computer cannot know. Early on, I noticed that a computer hyphenated "newspaper" by following the rule governing consonant clusters: Break after the first consonant. This, of course, resulted in "new-spaper." Compounds always seem to give the machine problems. In your example, the rule (as I remember it) is to break after a vowel and before a consonant, so the machine did, in fact, follow the rule. You're right that rules can be put into computers, and computers are very good at following them. The machine will do exactly what it is told to do. No more, and no less. Until machines can be taught semantics -- the meanings of words -- human oversight is essential. Another problem is defining what constitutes a syllable; people do it almost instinctively. Machines must be taught by prescribing rules. But the ability to think remains a human trait. How do you tell a machine which word is a name and which is not? In addition to the set of rules, computers I have dealt with also consult a lexicon to double-check for appropriate hyphenation. But it still requires human intervention to keep feeding new words into the lexicon.
GIGO still applies.

Editor's Revenge is a free newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Logomachist: J.T. Harding. To subscribe, send your email address to: jtharding39@gmail.com or to editorsrevenge@gmail.com.

By John T Harding
Second Series
Volume II, Number 4
July, 2010
BEWARE OF ABSOLUTES -- The $100 bill is "the highest value of all U.S. bills." Or so said The Associated Press. Not so. There are bills in denominations of $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000. And while they were discontinued in 1969, there are still some in the hands of collectors, and are still legal tender. The government also made bills denominated $100,000, but these were for use only for transactions between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
SOUND AND FURY -- Dinty Ramble objected to the nasal allergy commercial that claims the product "combats the cause." Of course. If it didn't, it would be of no value. And there's the gadget that claims if you plug it into your car radio system, you can use your cell phone, and talk safely while driving. It's not the gadget that causes distracted driving, it's the act of talking. Remember the signs on buses that said "Do not talk to driver while vehicle is in motion"?
HASTY HEADLINES -- Or, beware the obvious. "Suicidal tendencies can be fatal."
TOO BROKE TO PAY ATTENTION -- ABC-TV outlet in Philly touted a story about thieves "who stole $500 million in priceless art works." If they're priceless, where did the dollar figure come from?
GLEANINGS of an Itinerant Speller -- Respitory; "a huge menu to please any pallet"; "miniature Doberman pincher." "Forecasted" does not need the extraneous -ed ending. The verb is "forecast" in both present and past tense.
HYPHEN MAVEN HAVEN -- The rules of hyphenation, including where to break a word at the end of a line -- are relatively few and simple. So much so that a computer can be taught them. However, computers do not yet know semantics. The meaning of a word, especially one that has several conjoined parts, can dictate where a word should be split. Examples from daily newspapers recently include these: green-skeeper, new-spaper, and la-cebark. This last word referred to a type of elm tree, and appeared on Page one of the Philadelphia Inquirer. But the worst recent example came from the New York Times, where the computer produced this: th-ere. And from across the pond comes this example: Ma-rtin.
THANKS BRO -- The above thought were prompted by a message from Jim: "I have noticed in recent times that the usage of hyphenation seems to have discarded all the rules that I was taught when in school. There were not very many rules to remember, which made it simple. If hyphenation could be avoided, then that was the preferred option; one rule was to only hyphenate between syllables, another was to avoid hyphenating someone's name. If a name needed to be broken up, then the rule of syllables still applied. Rules can be put into computers and they are very good at following them, so word processing does not seem to be the source of this situation."
REPLY -- This has been an issue for me ever since the advent of computers. Yes, it is possible to program the few hyphenation rules into a computer, but there are also thousands of exceptions that a computer cannot know. Early on, I noticed that a computer hyphenated "newspaper" by following the rule governing consonant clusters: Break after the first consonant. This, of course, resulted in "new-spaper." Compounds always seem to give the machine problems. In your example, the rule (as I remember it) is to break after a vowel and before a consonant, so the machine did, in fact, follow the rule. You're right that rules can be put into computers, and computers are very good at following them. The machine will do exactly what it is told to do. No more, and no less. Until machines can be taught semantics -- the meanings of words -- human oversight is essential. Another problem is defining what constitutes a syllable; people do it almost instinctively. Machines must be taught by prescribing rules. But the ability to think remains a human trait. How do you tell a machine which word is a name and which is not? In addition to the set of rules, computers I have dealt with also consult a lexicon to double-check for appropriate hyphenation. But it still requires human intervention to keep feeding new words into the lexicon.
GIGO still applies.

Editor's Revenge is a free newsletter on the use, misuse and abuse of the English language in America. Logomachist: J.T. Harding. To subscribe, send your email address to: jtharding39@gmail.com or to editorsrevenge@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)