Early signals in campaign rhetoric suggest there will be renewed warnings that single motherhood is a national hazard.
Look for the rhetoric of the Radical Righteous to drift away from praising the courage of single moms in favor of emphasizing the importance of traditional man-woman marriage and "core family values."
The issue was touched on by speakers at the GOP Convention, even as they praised women in general and the courage of those raising a family on their own.
Pay special attention to the speeches of Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan, both Tea Party darlings and leading voices for "core family values."
Also noted: The use of the plural "these United States" by Mitt Romney and others is a harbinger of a new emphasis on states' rights over federal strength.
"The United States" implies one nation, as compared to a confederacy of individual, independent states, each responsible for its own social welfare issues, with no room for federal involvement.
Friday, August 31, 2012
The News Boom
We're not sure whether Aaron Sorkin started the trend or whether he saw it early on and capitalized on it with the TV series The Newsroom.
Either way, reporters are pressing politicians to actually answer the questions put to them, and not evade or sidestep or muddy the issue with half truths, ignored truths, irrelevant information, or outright lies.
TV anchors this week immediately exposed errors, half truths and "falsehoods," as some delicately put it, in speeches at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. And newspapers are running follow-up fact-checking stories detailing the problems.
And this is good.
But with more people getting their news from television rather than from print media, there needs to be more fact-checking from broadcast journalists, since some politicians seem to have given up truth in favor of propaganda.
Either way, reporters are pressing politicians to actually answer the questions put to them, and not evade or sidestep or muddy the issue with half truths, ignored truths, irrelevant information, or outright lies.
TV anchors this week immediately exposed errors, half truths and "falsehoods," as some delicately put it, in speeches at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. And newspapers are running follow-up fact-checking stories detailing the problems.
And this is good.
But with more people getting their news from television rather than from print media, there needs to be more fact-checking from broadcast journalists, since some politicians seem to have given up truth in favor of propaganda.
Allegators in the Press Pool
Politicians don't really like or trust news reporters, largely because they feel they can't control them.
Journalists, on the other hand, cherish the idea that they are independent and immune from being manipulated.
Sorry, guys, you're both delusional.
The gale-force windbags who stormed the GOPodium in Tampa have been pelting conventioneers and media outlets with slogans, innuendoes, insults, half-truths and outright lies about the problems facing America, the opposition party, and their own virtuousness.
We can expect more of the same next week when the Democrats gather.
By repeating and transmitting the message, the media are part of the campaign plan. Journalists have persuaded themselves that they are neutral, simply reporters of what was said. But if that is all they do, they are being manipulated -- used as conduits to propagate the message of the day.
Political parties market their candidates just as businesses market their products. Those in the news media have a responsibility not only to report what was said, but also to supply readers and viewers with enough background and perspective so a well informed electorate can decide rationally and reasonably its voting preferences.
Reporters in the press pool need to be wary of allegations offered for publication, and to expose the allegators when appropriate.
Journalists, on the other hand, cherish the idea that they are independent and immune from being manipulated.
Sorry, guys, you're both delusional.
The gale-force windbags who stormed the GOPodium in Tampa have been pelting conventioneers and media outlets with slogans, innuendoes, insults, half-truths and outright lies about the problems facing America, the opposition party, and their own virtuousness.
We can expect more of the same next week when the Democrats gather.
By repeating and transmitting the message, the media are part of the campaign plan. Journalists have persuaded themselves that they are neutral, simply reporters of what was said. But if that is all they do, they are being manipulated -- used as conduits to propagate the message of the day.
Political parties market their candidates just as businesses market their products. Those in the news media have a responsibility not only to report what was said, but also to supply readers and viewers with enough background and perspective so a well informed electorate can decide rationally and reasonably its voting preferences.
Reporters in the press pool need to be wary of allegations offered for publication, and to expose the allegators when appropriate.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Relevance
Journalism Rule Number One: Get the name right.
People often care little what you write about them, as long as you spell the name right. Descriptive information, such as age, occupation, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or even gender may not be relevant to the story.
Rule Number Two: Use only information about the subject relevant to the story.
Hint: The secret of good writing is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.
There was a time when race and ethnicity were routinely used in newspaper reports, relevant or not. At the time, of course, many did believe terms like Negro, Jew, Irish, Polish, etc. were somehow relevant. That practice began to change in the 1950s as the civil rights movement took root and grew. Eventually, the guideline became one of relevance, such as the description of a suspect sought by police.
Otherwise, to describe a person as a 30-year-old Irish Catholic plumber, or as a 19-year-old black high school dropout, or as a 25-year-old unemployed journalist, or as a Muslim physician or as a Jewish baker, may have little or no relevance to the story. Likewise, a woman's age and hair color will have no relevance to her capability as a corporate executive.
In any case, journalistic awareness of these issues began to build some decades ago. However, this awareness is not as widespread as it should be, and to continue to insert irrelevant information into news stories can only feed the biases and bigotry of certain readers.
People often care little what you write about them, as long as you spell the name right. Descriptive information, such as age, occupation, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or even gender may not be relevant to the story.
Rule Number Two: Use only information about the subject relevant to the story.
Hint: The secret of good writing is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.
There was a time when race and ethnicity were routinely used in newspaper reports, relevant or not. At the time, of course, many did believe terms like Negro, Jew, Irish, Polish, etc. were somehow relevant. That practice began to change in the 1950s as the civil rights movement took root and grew. Eventually, the guideline became one of relevance, such as the description of a suspect sought by police.
Otherwise, to describe a person as a 30-year-old Irish Catholic plumber, or as a 19-year-old black high school dropout, or as a 25-year-old unemployed journalist, or as a Muslim physician or as a Jewish baker, may have little or no relevance to the story. Likewise, a woman's age and hair color will have no relevance to her capability as a corporate executive.
In any case, journalistic awareness of these issues began to build some decades ago. However, this awareness is not as widespread as it should be, and to continue to insert irrelevant information into news stories can only feed the biases and bigotry of certain readers.
The Anti-Mixer
Government and religion, like oil and water, don't mix. One floats atop the surface of the other, smothering any life in the depth of thought.
Which is which? It could be either.
Which is which? It could be either.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Bully Pulpit
The USA Today online headline today said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told Republicans at their convention in Tampa to stop being nice guys.
Dinty Ramble wondered, "When did they start?"
Dinty Ramble wondered, "When did they start?"
Grade Inflation
As students return to school, it's time to consider the issue of grade inflation and its long-term effects on the economy.
The following essay appeared in Phi Kappa Phi Forum, the magazine of the National Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi, in the Spring 2012 edition under the headline "Sliding Through Means Sliding Down."
By John T. Harding
Grade inflation at American colleges and universities undercuts more than the ivory tower. Giving high marks to undeserving students also undermines companies that hire them. Grade point averages at all U.S. schools rose from 2.93 for the 1991-92 academic year to 3.07 a decade later and stood at 3.3 at private schools and 3.0 at public schools in 2010-11; education researcher and former Duke University professor Stuart Rojstaczer reported these figures on his website gradeinflation.com and in “Grading in American Colleges and Universities,” an article he published with colleague Christopher Healy in the March 4, 2010, edition of Teachers College Record. The economic consequences of this false accounting in academia jeopardize the bottom line of corporate America, creating a major problem for both sides.
The following essay appeared in Phi Kappa Phi Forum, the magazine of the National Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi, in the Spring 2012 edition under the headline "Sliding Through Means Sliding Down."
By John T. Harding
Grade inflation at American colleges and universities undercuts more than the ivory tower. Giving high marks to undeserving students also undermines companies that hire them. Grade point averages at all U.S. schools rose from 2.93 for the 1991-92 academic year to 3.07 a decade later and stood at 3.3 at private schools and 3.0 at public schools in 2010-11; education researcher and former Duke University professor Stuart Rojstaczer reported these figures on his website gradeinflation.com and in “Grading in American Colleges and Universities,” an article he published with colleague Christopher Healy in the March 4, 2010, edition of Teachers College Record. The economic consequences of this false accounting in academia jeopardize the bottom line of corporate America, creating a major problem for both sides.
Causes of grade inflation
“Grades are the primary currency of academia,” note Rojstaczer and Healy in “Grading in American Colleges and Universities,” and “like any currency, it would seem that grades are intrinsically subject to inflation.” Why? The reason isn’t clear, they write, but “a likely influence is the emergence of the now common practice of requiring student-based evaluations of college teachers.” Professors may grant higher grades than merit calls for to increase their popularity among students and bolster job security and advancement. Moreover, the major purpose of grading, the researchers add, “changed from an internal measure and motivator of student performance to a measure principally used for external evaluation of graduates” — potential job applicants.
Complicating matters, some grading systems don’t assess students accurately. Take grading on a curve. Elementary statistics stipulates that the bell-shaped curve is valid for a large sample over time, since this configuration reflects the general population. But the curve is inappropriate for some groups, such as a class of 30. A single-classroom sample is simply too small for formulaic restriction. Plus, some professors refuse to grant more than a handful of As or Bs even if more students deserve high grades. Further, some professors might sympathize with students who need a certain grade to be eligible for financial aid. And some instructors are so good at their jobs that many students do well in their courses.
Effects of grade inflation
An October 2009 study by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at Minnesota State University at Mankato concluded that persistent grade inflation can mean “a cheapening of the value and importance of both a college degree and academic honors” and “the lack of consistent and accurate information to potential employers about the skills of a university’s graduates,” among other troubling ramifications. Thus, “employers place more emphasis on the work experience of college students in the hiring process. This forces students to work more at a job and study less in college.” Meanwhile, “students are increasingly disengaged from their studies, and the literacy of graduates has declined,” according to findings cited by Rojstaczer and Healy. And there remains the tactic of students taking snap courses for easy grades.
Increasingly, the purpose of higher grades seems no longer proof of superior learning but as a ticket to a job. A consequence of this failure of accountability is a drag on business. Economic growth happens, according to Partha Dasgupta, professor emeritus of economics at University of Cambridge, “when people acquire knowledge and make use of it, or when people make better use of what they already know.” (Economics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2007).
As Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics, put it in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom, “[T]he rate of return on investment in training is very much higher than the rate of return on investment in physical capital.” The University of Chicago professor continued, “This difference suggests the existence of underinvestment in human capital.” His insight applies to grade inflation in a number of ways. If a better educated workforce is more productive, the opposite applies as well. A grade that becomes easier to obtain has less value than those issued earlier to others and the store of knowledge it purports to represent is diminished, causing employers who might base hiring decisions partly on transcripts to come to faulty conclusions. Result: A firm gets a lower return on investment because grade-inflated hires are less qualified and proficient than their counterparts. The costs involved then affect other parts of the business and eventually the bottom line of profit or loss.
Implications of grade inflation
Inflation, whether of the money supply or of academic grades, devalues the unit of measurement. Grade inflation dilutes the worth of an education just as monetary inflation decreases the value of a dollar. If a dollar no longer buys a cup of coffee, an unearned A no longer demonstrates mastery of content. And as makers and drinkers of coffee suffer, so do college students and businesses that employ them.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Linguistic Snobbery
A finance professor warned his students that the "proper" way to pronounce the topic word is to stress the second syllable. Thus, "fih-NANCE," not "FIE-nance."
So which is "correct"?
Presumably, if one wants an A in the class, one yields to the professor's preference (not to say prejudice), and pronounces it his way.
The linguistic reality, however, is that noun stress in English tends to shift toward the front of the word, with variations over time, place and social level.
Consider, for example, the word garage, borrowed from the French root gare, and the suffix -age. (Other borrowed words with the -age ending include courage, marriage and carriage. Note that the stress is on the first syllable.) In America, the pronunciation of garage is typically on the second syllable: "guh-RAJ." In England, however, the pronunciation in one social class is "GAH-RAJ," with only a bit less stress on the second syllable, and in another social class the pronunciation is "GAH-ridge," with a lot less stress on the second syllable.
To insist that students speak a certain way is to say that a given dialect or pronunciation is somehow "better" than others. But that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
There was a time when a certain university in New Jersey required all its students to pass a speech exam before graduating. But diversity brought students from Scotland, Ireland, Australia and England as well as from U.S. inner cities and suburbs. All were native speakers of the English language.
What, then, were the criteria for passing the exam? Were the students from Scotland, Ireland and Australia to be judged by different standards applied to those students from England or American suburbs? Were students with inner-city dialects relegated to secondary status because their speech patterns were somehow "wrong"?
Which, then, was the "correct" dialect?
Answer: All of them.
Linguistically, all dialects are equal. The only reason one dialect has more prestige is because its speakers have more prestige.
And that is a social judgment.
The linguistic reality is that all dialects are equal. The social reality is that success can depend, in part, on how well you speak the "prestige" dialect. Fairness don't enter into it.
So which is "correct"?
Presumably, if one wants an A in the class, one yields to the professor's preference (not to say prejudice), and pronounces it his way.
The linguistic reality, however, is that noun stress in English tends to shift toward the front of the word, with variations over time, place and social level.
Consider, for example, the word garage, borrowed from the French root gare, and the suffix -age. (Other borrowed words with the -age ending include courage, marriage and carriage. Note that the stress is on the first syllable.) In America, the pronunciation of garage is typically on the second syllable: "guh-RAJ." In England, however, the pronunciation in one social class is "GAH-RAJ," with only a bit less stress on the second syllable, and in another social class the pronunciation is "GAH-ridge," with a lot less stress on the second syllable.
To insist that students speak a certain way is to say that a given dialect or pronunciation is somehow "better" than others. But that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
There was a time when a certain university in New Jersey required all its students to pass a speech exam before graduating. But diversity brought students from Scotland, Ireland, Australia and England as well as from U.S. inner cities and suburbs. All were native speakers of the English language.
What, then, were the criteria for passing the exam? Were the students from Scotland, Ireland and Australia to be judged by different standards applied to those students from England or American suburbs? Were students with inner-city dialects relegated to secondary status because their speech patterns were somehow "wrong"?
Which, then, was the "correct" dialect?
Answer: All of them.
Linguistically, all dialects are equal. The only reason one dialect has more prestige is because its speakers have more prestige.
And that is a social judgment.
The linguistic reality is that all dialects are equal. The social reality is that success can depend, in part, on how well you speak the "prestige" dialect. Fairness don't enter into it.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Juvenile Genius
Those who take the tax reform pledge vow to oppose any tax increase, of any kind, for any reason, ever. The man who wrote the pledge, Grover Norquist (R-Sesame Street), says he got the idea at age 12 while riding a school bus.
What does that tell you?
What does that tell you?
Borgian Rebels
Computer geeks treat people as so many data points in a cyber-algorithm to be assimilated into the Borg.
"Resistance is futile," saith the Borg. -- Star Trek
"Big Brother is watching you." -- 1984, George Orwell
"I am not a number, I am a free man!" -- The Prisoner
"Those who sacrifice a little freedom for more security deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Can't we all just get along?" -- Rodney King
"Sorry, Rodney. I can't do that." -- Hal, 2001, A Space Odyssey
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
"Resistance is futile," saith the Borg. -- Star Trek
"Big Brother is watching you." -- 1984, George Orwell
"I am not a number, I am a free man!" -- The Prisoner
"Those who sacrifice a little freedom for more security deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Can't we all just get along?" -- Rodney King
"Sorry, Rodney. I can't do that." -- Hal, 2001, A Space Odyssey
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
The American Myth
There's been a lot of talk about John Galt recently. Let's take a look at what's behind it.
John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, represents the American myth of "rugged individualism," which was widespread at a time when people had to depend largely on themselves alone for survival.
It was a time when, if a man did not like conditions where he was, he could leave, and move elsewhere. America had fewer people at the time, big and open with plenty of space available for those who wanted to restart their lives with little or no interference. (That freedom to relocate didn't apply as much to women, but that's another issue.)
America was the "Land of Opportunity" for many in Europe who felt stifled by social and economic pressures that prevented upward mobility.
As expressed in the novel, the myth of individual freedom, opportunity and responsibility, coupled with John Galt's defiance of government attempts to control his life, strongly influenced Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's choice this year as vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party.
To his credit, Ryan succeeded.
America can still be a Land of Opportunity, but it takes more education and skill to succeed today than it did when the myth was born.
Agriculture and manufacturing are no longer the main drivers of growth and success in the American economy. The days of low-skill, high-pay manufacturing jobs are are long gone, and the family farm has been displaced by agribusiness corporations.
Factory towns have become ghost towns.
Manufacturing regions in the Northeast are now finance and distribution centers.
The John Galt myth is fiction, Trumped by wheeler-dealers and brought to earth by high-flying financiers.
The Little House on the Prairie is no more. It is history, eroded by the winds of change.
There is no going back. The "good old days" never were.
Opportunists saw their opportunities, and they took 'em, locking out the many in favor of their own few.
It's time to light the lamp of education, to unlock and reopen the Golden Door.
John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, represents the American myth of "rugged individualism," which was widespread at a time when people had to depend largely on themselves alone for survival.
It was a time when, if a man did not like conditions where he was, he could leave, and move elsewhere. America had fewer people at the time, big and open with plenty of space available for those who wanted to restart their lives with little or no interference. (That freedom to relocate didn't apply as much to women, but that's another issue.)
America was the "Land of Opportunity" for many in Europe who felt stifled by social and economic pressures that prevented upward mobility.
As expressed in the novel, the myth of individual freedom, opportunity and responsibility, coupled with John Galt's defiance of government attempts to control his life, strongly influenced Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's choice this year as vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party.
To his credit, Ryan succeeded.
America can still be a Land of Opportunity, but it takes more education and skill to succeed today than it did when the myth was born.
Agriculture and manufacturing are no longer the main drivers of growth and success in the American economy. The days of low-skill, high-pay manufacturing jobs are are long gone, and the family farm has been displaced by agribusiness corporations.
Factory towns have become ghost towns.
Manufacturing regions in the Northeast are now finance and distribution centers.
The John Galt myth is fiction, Trumped by wheeler-dealers and brought to earth by high-flying financiers.
The Little House on the Prairie is no more. It is history, eroded by the winds of change.
There is no going back. The "good old days" never were.
Opportunists saw their opportunities, and they took 'em, locking out the many in favor of their own few.
It's time to light the lamp of education, to unlock and reopen the Golden Door.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Political Marketing
Somewhere, there is an MBA in Politics, combining statistical sampling techniques with marketing and advertising strategies, and applying them all to election campaigns.
Consider these factors: A certain portion of the electorate will vote Democratic or Republican no matter the candidate's positions or qualifications. Others will vote for (or against) a candidate for any one of many reasons that have little or nothing to do with politics or governing. These include such elements as gender, ethnicity, religion, race or some other cultural factor. Finally, there are the few who vote not from the heart but from the head, basing their choice on the candidate's intelligence, education, ability, experience, economic and foreign policy positions, or similar qualifications.
Those last few are the hardest to persuade. It follows, then, that campaigns will devote resources to influencing voters who are easier to persuade. Thus, electioneering is more like marketing, and conventions become promotional events designed to spread the most appealing message to the most people.
To their credit, the major TV broadcast networks this year are opting out of the propaganda machinations. Instead, they will carry convention events for one hour only, each night for the final three nights of the convention.
Republican Party leaders greeted that decision with howls of anger that their carefully crafted opening night spectacular will not be shown on the major networks. The days of all that free publicity are gone. There is no drama, no tension, no news, since the choice of nominee is already known. This is also true of the Democratic Party.
However, for those political junkies who still want their daily or hourly fix of extensive coverage of the Grand Old Party's party, they can turn to CSPAN or to the cable TV channels to get what little "news" may come during the carefully scripted festivities.
The downside of CSPAN, of course, is the lack of commentators telling viewers what they are seeing. And some of the cable news outlets will reinforce the party line. In a way, it's like watching a baseball game while listening to a radio play-by-play. What you see isn't really real unless some authoritative voice reassures you by describing in detail what you are seeing.
What's the point, really, since -- at the conventions, at least -- we already know who the winner is. But let's think of it as watching reruns of Law and Order. We know how it turns out, but it's entertaining nonetheless.
The real drama comes in November.
Consider these factors: A certain portion of the electorate will vote Democratic or Republican no matter the candidate's positions or qualifications. Others will vote for (or against) a candidate for any one of many reasons that have little or nothing to do with politics or governing. These include such elements as gender, ethnicity, religion, race or some other cultural factor. Finally, there are the few who vote not from the heart but from the head, basing their choice on the candidate's intelligence, education, ability, experience, economic and foreign policy positions, or similar qualifications.
Those last few are the hardest to persuade. It follows, then, that campaigns will devote resources to influencing voters who are easier to persuade. Thus, electioneering is more like marketing, and conventions become promotional events designed to spread the most appealing message to the most people.
To their credit, the major TV broadcast networks this year are opting out of the propaganda machinations. Instead, they will carry convention events for one hour only, each night for the final three nights of the convention.
Republican Party leaders greeted that decision with howls of anger that their carefully crafted opening night spectacular will not be shown on the major networks. The days of all that free publicity are gone. There is no drama, no tension, no news, since the choice of nominee is already known. This is also true of the Democratic Party.
However, for those political junkies who still want their daily or hourly fix of extensive coverage of the Grand Old Party's party, they can turn to CSPAN or to the cable TV channels to get what little "news" may come during the carefully scripted festivities.
The downside of CSPAN, of course, is the lack of commentators telling viewers what they are seeing. And some of the cable news outlets will reinforce the party line. In a way, it's like watching a baseball game while listening to a radio play-by-play. What you see isn't really real unless some authoritative voice reassures you by describing in detail what you are seeing.
What's the point, really, since -- at the conventions, at least -- we already know who the winner is. But let's think of it as watching reruns of Law and Order. We know how it turns out, but it's entertaining nonetheless.
The real drama comes in November.
Rim Shots
The story referred to the time when "Bill and Melinda Gates was married." For those who insist that the collective noun "couple" takes a singular verb, consider this sample: "The couple was married in 1990. Two years later, it was divorced." Collective nouns can take either a singular or plural verb, depending on context. In the case of a marriage, there are two people involved, so they are plural.
Consider: "The crew is ready to make sail." (The crew is acting as a team.) Or, "The crew are going ashore." (Members of the crew are off for fun and games.)
Several decades ago, when computers were introduced in newsrooms, there was a system which not only told the computer the rules for hyphenation, but also had a lexicon, so the machine could cross-check its bid to hyphenate a word with a separate list showing how to break up a word that refused to follow the rules.
Such a system would have saved the New York Times from printing "ha-ven't."
The only thing needed then was to assign an editor to add words to the lexicon so such things do not happen a second time.
As a start, programs could obtain a copy of the Government Printing Office pocket-size booklet, Word Division. Capacity should not be a problem, since computer memories are so much bigger today.
My copy is dated 1968, and was priced at 95 cents.
And for doubters who say, "Surely you can't be serious," the response is, "I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."
Consider: "The crew is ready to make sail." (The crew is acting as a team.) Or, "The crew are going ashore." (Members of the crew are off for fun and games.)
Several decades ago, when computers were introduced in newsrooms, there was a system which not only told the computer the rules for hyphenation, but also had a lexicon, so the machine could cross-check its bid to hyphenate a word with a separate list showing how to break up a word that refused to follow the rules.
Such a system would have saved the New York Times from printing "ha-ven't."
The only thing needed then was to assign an editor to add words to the lexicon so such things do not happen a second time.
As a start, programs could obtain a copy of the Government Printing Office pocket-size booklet, Word Division. Capacity should not be a problem, since computer memories are so much bigger today.
My copy is dated 1968, and was priced at 95 cents.
And for doubters who say, "Surely you can't be serious," the response is, "I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."
Alleged Allegation
Comments
To "allege" is synonymous with the verb "accuse." And liberal use of the word "allegedly" and its variations does not necessarily get you off the hook when reporting crime news. Excess use of "allege" and its variations only calls attention to the number of times you use the word, and suggests a lack of writing skill and an excessive fear of lawsuits.
This practice is especially noticeable in broadcast news, as when the term is used five times or so in a one-minute report.
We've heard the following recently: Police captured the alleged suspect, who allegedly confessed to the alleged killing of the alleged victim. (That compresses the various uses into a single sentence, but you get the point.)
Let's put it this way: When someone is found, hands tied in back, with bullet wounds in the forehead, there is no doubt this is a murder. The allegation (read: accusation) is against whodunnit, not against the (accused) victim.
The Samurai Rim Man suspects alleged lawyers, in their alleged zeal to protect their alleged clients from allegedly reporting alleged crimes and allegations against alleged suspects and their alleged victims, are allegedly being carried away with their alleged protectiveness.
Consider the above paragraph a CYA memo (cover your allegation).
NEWS ITEM:
"WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney's success in raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the costliest presidential race ever can be traced in part to a secretive data-mining project that sifts through Americans' personal information — including their purchasing history and church attendance — to identify new and likely, wealthy donors, The Associated Press has learned." (USA Today online, 24 August 2012)
The report also said that the Obama campaign uses similar funding strategies. So both sides do it. Well, that makes it all right, then.
("Mother, make him stop." "She did it, too.")
Further support for dropping out of Facebook.
This practice is especially noticeable in broadcast news, as when the term is used five times or so in a one-minute report.
We've heard the following recently: Police captured the alleged suspect, who allegedly confessed to the alleged killing of the alleged victim. (That compresses the various uses into a single sentence, but you get the point.)
Let's put it this way: When someone is found, hands tied in back, with bullet wounds in the forehead, there is no doubt this is a murder. The allegation (read: accusation) is against whodunnit, not against the (accused) victim.
The Samurai Rim Man suspects alleged lawyers, in their alleged zeal to protect their alleged clients from allegedly reporting alleged crimes and allegations against alleged suspects and their alleged victims, are allegedly being carried away with their alleged protectiveness.
Consider the above paragraph a CYA memo (cover your allegation).
NEWS ITEM:
"WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney's success in raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the costliest presidential race ever can be traced in part to a secretive data-mining project that sifts through Americans' personal information — including their purchasing history and church attendance — to identify new and likely, wealthy donors, The Associated Press has learned." (USA Today online, 24 August 2012)
The report also said that the Obama campaign uses similar funding strategies. So both sides do it. Well, that makes it all right, then.
("Mother, make him stop." "She did it, too.")
Further support for dropping out of Facebook.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Never Assume
For those who care about such things, here's why I have canceled my Facebook account.
After I commented that Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as a running mate provides voters with a real choice, the FB computer assumed that the comment was an endorsement, and it posted "John likes Romney" on the profile section.
It was not, is not, and likely never shall be an endorsement. It was a comment, that's all.
What's more, the FB computer put me on its list for more messages of praise for the GOP candidate.
As if I care.
I do not.
I do not want anyone -- human or cyborg -- assuming what my likes and/or dislikes are, and then spreading that assumption, thus informing others of what it or they assume are my opinions.
My opinions are my own, and it is my choice as to when, whether, how and to whom I will vent my opinions.
Sarcasm and subtlety can be difficult to convey in text, and computers are not yet capable of distinguishing neutral comments or observations from endorsements or praise, much less the subtlety that effective sarcasm requires.
In any case, my comment on the Romney-Ryan issue was neutral, in that it does indeed offer voters a choice.
Sometimes the choice is negative.
When it comes to elections, voters may not "like" either candidate. Americans often don't vote for one candidate so much as they vote against the other guy.
So, Mr. FB, you can take your algorithms that gather data on millions of people and assume what they "like," fold them five ways and ...
I'm gone, to a place where I can express my opinions in my own way, and where I will decide what I "like."
After I commented that Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as a running mate provides voters with a real choice, the FB computer assumed that the comment was an endorsement, and it posted "John likes Romney" on the profile section.
It was not, is not, and likely never shall be an endorsement. It was a comment, that's all.
What's more, the FB computer put me on its list for more messages of praise for the GOP candidate.
As if I care.
I do not.
I do not want anyone -- human or cyborg -- assuming what my likes and/or dislikes are, and then spreading that assumption, thus informing others of what it or they assume are my opinions.
My opinions are my own, and it is my choice as to when, whether, how and to whom I will vent my opinions.
Sarcasm and subtlety can be difficult to convey in text, and computers are not yet capable of distinguishing neutral comments or observations from endorsements or praise, much less the subtlety that effective sarcasm requires.
In any case, my comment on the Romney-Ryan issue was neutral, in that it does indeed offer voters a choice.
Sometimes the choice is negative.
When it comes to elections, voters may not "like" either candidate. Americans often don't vote for one candidate so much as they vote against the other guy.
So, Mr. FB, you can take your algorithms that gather data on millions of people and assume what they "like," fold them five ways and ...
I'm gone, to a place where I can express my opinions in my own way, and where I will decide what I "like."
Speechifiction
When politicians get caught saying something so far away from fact as to be embarrassing, they resort to such "poli-speak" explanations as these:
"I misspoke. What I really meant was ... My remark was taken out of context. I was misinformed by staff. My opponent twisted my words. There's a media conspiracy against me."
And so on. It's probably too much to expect them to admit they were flat-out wrong, or it was a stupid thing to say, or even that it was a lie.
Random quotes: Someone once said it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.
How do you know when a lawyer/politician is lying? His lips move.
"I misspoke. What I really meant was ... My remark was taken out of context. I was misinformed by staff. My opponent twisted my words. There's a media conspiracy against me."
And so on. It's probably too much to expect them to admit they were flat-out wrong, or it was a stupid thing to say, or even that it was a lie.
Random quotes: Someone once said it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.
How do you know when a lawyer/politician is lying? His lips move.
Washout
HED TK is newsroom shorthand for "headline to come," and here's one that we may see next week:
Tampa Tempest
Hurricane Isaac Eyes GOP Convention
Cynics Cite Divine Sign
(Readers are here invited to supply their own text.)
Random thoughts:
Identical twins are nature's clones.
Novels are written one word at a time.
Too many commas slow the reader.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Afghanistanism
News item: Total American casualties in Afghanistan have exceeded 2,000 deaths in the past eleven years. In the city of Philadelphia, the total number killed in gun violence in the ten years through the end of 2011 was 3,405. Add another 200 or so murder victims so far this year in the City of Brotherly Love -- a number that is not far behind the military death rate in the war zone known as Afghanistan.
Since the mid-19th Century, editorial writers have ranted on what to do about Afghanistan. This went on at such length and for so long that journalism textbooks had a word to describe opinions on situations that were far away, unsolvable and to some extent irrelevant to the Western world.
It was called "Afghanistanism."
For 150 years, the largest and most powerful military forces on the planet have tried and failed to control that strife-ridden country.
In the 19th Century, the British Army could not.
In the 20th Century, the Russian Army could not.
And in the 21st Century, the American military cannot.
Perhaps it's time to rethink priorities and leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.
Since the mid-19th Century, editorial writers have ranted on what to do about Afghanistan. This went on at such length and for so long that journalism textbooks had a word to describe opinions on situations that were far away, unsolvable and to some extent irrelevant to the Western world.
It was called "Afghanistanism."
For 150 years, the largest and most powerful military forces on the planet have tried and failed to control that strife-ridden country.
In the 19th Century, the British Army could not.
In the 20th Century, the Russian Army could not.
And in the 21st Century, the American military cannot.
Perhaps it's time to rethink priorities and leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Dagwood Syndrome
TV ads regularly depict men as clumsy dullards, slow-witted, at best incompetent and at worst downright stupid. He is unable to fix, repair or even operate anything mechanical in the kitchen, he is ignorant of even common sense when dealing with children, and is unaware of potential consequences of his actions.
"Father Knows Best" was not a truism; it was sarcasm.
"Father Knows Best" was not a truism; it was sarcasm.
Science vs Religion
The scientist says, "I have found it. Here is how I found it, and here are the methods I used. Try it yourself, and if you find the same thing, then we will both know it is true."
The religionist says, "I have found it, and you must believe without questioning or doubting."
Some say, "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible."
This is evading responsibility. It's another way of refusing to attempt to explain, either because of laziness or ignorance or a conviction that others are too stupid to understand. At worst, it's a power play to gain control over the lives of others.
The religionist says, "I have found it, and you must believe without questioning or doubting."
Some say, "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible."
This is evading responsibility. It's another way of refusing to attempt to explain, either because of laziness or ignorance or a conviction that others are too stupid to understand. At worst, it's a power play to gain control over the lives of others.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Supply Side Economics
"If you build it, they will come."
-- The Field of Dreams
"Buy now."
-- Herbert Hoover, during the Great Depression
"With what?"
-- Reply from a man on the street
Basic to all economics is the Law of Demand and Supply. Once you understand that law, the professor said to students, you've pretty well got it down. All else proceeds from there.
Let's proceed. One theory of economics claims that supply creates its own demand, and this was popular during the Reagan Era, with its "trickle down" premise of Reaganomics. That strategy suggested that if business was encouraged to increase production, through tax breaks and other aids, then the economic benefits would then trickle down through the rest of the economy, eventually benefiting all consumers; increased supply would result in lower prices, which would generate a rise in demand to consume the increased supply.
All well in theory. Eventually. In the long run. Maybe.
Consumers need an incentive to buy, but if they don't have the financial means, nothing happens. In addition, corporations are just as likely to keep the tax breaks to themselves to bolster their own bottom lines, and not pass on the benefits to consumers.
Advertising and marketing programs can provoke increased purchases, but if, on the street level, the consumer is out of work, there is no money to buy.
So which comes first, supply or demand?
Hoover invoked patriotism to boost demand. It didn't work. Reagan provided benefits to suppliers to promote activity. Did it work? Questionable. The economy improved, but other factors were also at work.
So here we are, at the Keynesian crossroads. This route says that when consumers can't buy for lack of funds, resulting in a drop in supply and a continuing downward cycle, then the government can and should step in by stimulating purchases. One way is by financing infrastructure projects -- roads, bridges, etc. -- thus giving construction workers money to buy. Another is by helping state and local governments increase employment of teachers, police and firefighters.
If workers have money, they will buy.
If you build it, they will come, but only if they have the price of admission.
-- The Field of Dreams
"Buy now."
-- Herbert Hoover, during the Great Depression
"With what?"
-- Reply from a man on the street
Basic to all economics is the Law of Demand and Supply. Once you understand that law, the professor said to students, you've pretty well got it down. All else proceeds from there.
Let's proceed. One theory of economics claims that supply creates its own demand, and this was popular during the Reagan Era, with its "trickle down" premise of Reaganomics. That strategy suggested that if business was encouraged to increase production, through tax breaks and other aids, then the economic benefits would then trickle down through the rest of the economy, eventually benefiting all consumers; increased supply would result in lower prices, which would generate a rise in demand to consume the increased supply.
All well in theory. Eventually. In the long run. Maybe.
Consumers need an incentive to buy, but if they don't have the financial means, nothing happens. In addition, corporations are just as likely to keep the tax breaks to themselves to bolster their own bottom lines, and not pass on the benefits to consumers.
Advertising and marketing programs can provoke increased purchases, but if, on the street level, the consumer is out of work, there is no money to buy.
So which comes first, supply or demand?
Hoover invoked patriotism to boost demand. It didn't work. Reagan provided benefits to suppliers to promote activity. Did it work? Questionable. The economy improved, but other factors were also at work.
So here we are, at the Keynesian crossroads. This route says that when consumers can't buy for lack of funds, resulting in a drop in supply and a continuing downward cycle, then the government can and should step in by stimulating purchases. One way is by financing infrastructure projects -- roads, bridges, etc. -- thus giving construction workers money to buy. Another is by helping state and local governments increase employment of teachers, police and firefighters.
If workers have money, they will buy.
If you build it, they will come, but only if they have the price of admission.
Capitalism
Does capitalism have a future?
In an era reminiscent of the "Gilded Age" of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, when the wealthiest 1 percent enjoyed a privileged lifestyle while much of the rest of society struggled, this is a fair question.
The answer from this corner is yes, it will survive, but only if it changes.
Entrepreneurs have a right to be compensated (earn a profit) for their skills in organizing, starting and operating a business. But a major problem with capitalism is the arrogance of wealthy capitalists and their abusive behavior toward those who work for them.
There's nothing inherently wrong or evil about capitalism; the evil lies in the arrogance, corruption and the abuse of other people by its practitioners. Even The Economist, a journalistic bastion of the free enterprise system, has noted that in many ways, Karl Marx was right. There were abuses in the system that needed to be corrected. Moreover, the problem with Communism, as practiced in Russia and Eastern Europe, is that it didn't work. China has a modified system, incorporating features of capitalism in its version of socialism. And Cuba has begun efforts to privatize many elements of its economy.
With every right comes responsibility, and the history of capitalism is rife with stories detailing how arrogance begets abuse.
Journalists in the 19th Century were called "muckrakers" for exposing abuse and corruption in corporate America. Theodore Roosevelt, who is credited with first using the term, intended it to be an insult. The writers instead embraced it as a badge of honor.
Beginning with Lincoln Steffens, who exposed abuses in politics; Ida Tarbell, who dealt with John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Co. monopoly, continuing with John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and Upton Sinclair's The Jungle; all the way to recent reports of corruption and abuse in the financial sector as well as a wide range of political, corporate and government topics, journalists have led the fight to correct abuses.
Charles Dickens is rightly remembered for his novels, but it's important to remember that his purpose was to expose the evils of poverty in 1840s England, and the abuses related to it. At the same time that Dickens was writing his fictionalized accounts, Friedrich Engels was writing factual accounts and his friend Karl Marx was working on his theories upholding the rights of workers.
Marx wrote that capitalism has within it the seeds of its own destruction -- an idea that was later echoed by conservative economists like Joseph Schumpeter, whose theory of "creative destruction" suggested that capitalism must constantly evolve to survive. And James Fulcher of Oxford University wrote that "Crises are a normal function of a capitalist economy."
The issue, then, is how capitalism can adapt and evolve so that everyone benefits. Marx saw only the destructive side of capitalism, not its phoenix-like ability to resurrect itself to new, more vibrant life. Marx predicted that capitalism would collapse, and be replaced by an economy dominated by workers. He did not anticipate, however, that management would learn to cooperate with labor unions so that both sides would benefit.
To Marx, self-destruction meant an end to the capitalist system entirely, to be replaced by a full form of socialism. It didn't happen that way. There were accommodations on both sides. Moreover, Marx based his analysis primarily on the economic systems in England and Germany, and was opposed to its principles being applied to Russia. Reason: Western Europe had already undergone an Industrial Revolution, while Russia was still a feudal society.
Just as the rise of labor unions brought about concessions and accommodations from management in the 20th Century, which benefitted both sides, and as the Great Depression, coupled with the First World War, brought an end to the first "Gilded Age," so also there will be adjustments in the 21st Century, as capital and labor learn to cooperate with government to build a better society.
There are some, however, who still follow the precepts of David Ricardo, the 19th Century thinker who believed that in the long run, left to its own devices, the economic body heals itself. Therefore, no government involvement is needed or warranted in an unfettered free enterprise system.
But, as the 20th Century's John Maynard Keynes replied, "In the long run we are all dead."
Meanwhile, millions suffer.
In an era reminiscent of the "Gilded Age" of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, when the wealthiest 1 percent enjoyed a privileged lifestyle while much of the rest of society struggled, this is a fair question.
The answer from this corner is yes, it will survive, but only if it changes.
Entrepreneurs have a right to be compensated (earn a profit) for their skills in organizing, starting and operating a business. But a major problem with capitalism is the arrogance of wealthy capitalists and their abusive behavior toward those who work for them.
There's nothing inherently wrong or evil about capitalism; the evil lies in the arrogance, corruption and the abuse of other people by its practitioners. Even The Economist, a journalistic bastion of the free enterprise system, has noted that in many ways, Karl Marx was right. There were abuses in the system that needed to be corrected. Moreover, the problem with Communism, as practiced in Russia and Eastern Europe, is that it didn't work. China has a modified system, incorporating features of capitalism in its version of socialism. And Cuba has begun efforts to privatize many elements of its economy.
With every right comes responsibility, and the history of capitalism is rife with stories detailing how arrogance begets abuse.
Journalists in the 19th Century were called "muckrakers" for exposing abuse and corruption in corporate America. Theodore Roosevelt, who is credited with first using the term, intended it to be an insult. The writers instead embraced it as a badge of honor.
Beginning with Lincoln Steffens, who exposed abuses in politics; Ida Tarbell, who dealt with John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Co. monopoly, continuing with John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and Upton Sinclair's The Jungle; all the way to recent reports of corruption and abuse in the financial sector as well as a wide range of political, corporate and government topics, journalists have led the fight to correct abuses.
Charles Dickens is rightly remembered for his novels, but it's important to remember that his purpose was to expose the evils of poverty in 1840s England, and the abuses related to it. At the same time that Dickens was writing his fictionalized accounts, Friedrich Engels was writing factual accounts and his friend Karl Marx was working on his theories upholding the rights of workers.
Marx wrote that capitalism has within it the seeds of its own destruction -- an idea that was later echoed by conservative economists like Joseph Schumpeter, whose theory of "creative destruction" suggested that capitalism must constantly evolve to survive. And James Fulcher of Oxford University wrote that "Crises are a normal function of a capitalist economy."
The issue, then, is how capitalism can adapt and evolve so that everyone benefits. Marx saw only the destructive side of capitalism, not its phoenix-like ability to resurrect itself to new, more vibrant life. Marx predicted that capitalism would collapse, and be replaced by an economy dominated by workers. He did not anticipate, however, that management would learn to cooperate with labor unions so that both sides would benefit.
To Marx, self-destruction meant an end to the capitalist system entirely, to be replaced by a full form of socialism. It didn't happen that way. There were accommodations on both sides. Moreover, Marx based his analysis primarily on the economic systems in England and Germany, and was opposed to its principles being applied to Russia. Reason: Western Europe had already undergone an Industrial Revolution, while Russia was still a feudal society.
Just as the rise of labor unions brought about concessions and accommodations from management in the 20th Century, which benefitted both sides, and as the Great Depression, coupled with the First World War, brought an end to the first "Gilded Age," so also there will be adjustments in the 21st Century, as capital and labor learn to cooperate with government to build a better society.
There are some, however, who still follow the precepts of David Ricardo, the 19th Century thinker who believed that in the long run, left to its own devices, the economic body heals itself. Therefore, no government involvement is needed or warranted in an unfettered free enterprise system.
But, as the 20th Century's John Maynard Keynes replied, "In the long run we are all dead."
Meanwhile, millions suffer.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Famine in America
Would you rather walk to work or bring your lunch? -- Dinty Ramble
Consider this question: What happens when government is reluctant to intervene in a crisis? Conservative economic theory says leave things alone and the problems will resolve themselves.
History shows otherwise.
The British government expected the private sector to resolve food distribution problems when the Great Famine struck Ireland in the 1840s. But merchants wanted to reap high profits from the increased demand for food, so the government in London did nothing to stop "famine profits." Large quantities of food grown in Ireland were exported. Result: Millions of people with no money to pay higher prices for food died of starvation.
In 1940, the U.S. government met fierce opposition to a plan that would limit profits, even as it encouraged war preparation. Manufacturers wanted the high profits from munitions sales, but the government banned "war profiteering."
In addition, a lack of government control can also cause a crisis. After the Wall Street Crash of 1929, when the financial system collapsed, commercial banks and investment banks were separated. Decades later, however, lifting the ban precipitated another financial crisis, and only government intervention saved financial institutions -- those deemed "too big to fail" -- from collapsing and taking depositor and investor funds down with them.
Economic theory is one thing. But when it doesn't work, reality requires government intervention.
Harvard economist Amartya Sen has shown that famines can be prevented if there is the political will to do so. There has not been widespread famine in India since independence in 1947.
Historian Christine Kinealy of Drew University has documented the export of food from Ireland in the 1840s even as millions starved.
Currently, drought in the American Midwest is destroying the corn crop, creating a shortage of food for livestock and for use in making ethanol for fuel.
Economics 101: Reduced supply as demand holds steady means higher prices. Consequently, farmers sell off their herds because they can't afford feed corn. In turn, this leads to higher prices for beef, etc., at the consumer level.
Meanwhile, federal laws requiring ethanol in fuel draws corn away from what might otherwise be used for food. And as the supply of corn drops and the price rises, costs are passed on to consumers for everything from meat to margarine to auto fuel.
Which brings us back to the opening question: Would you rather walk to work or bring your lunch? (Assuming, of course, that you have a job and money for food.)
So the failure of the corn crop and the subsequent widespread shortages and higher prices could well lead to famine in America.
Unless there is enough political will to prevent it. And that requires government intervention.
Consider this question: What happens when government is reluctant to intervene in a crisis? Conservative economic theory says leave things alone and the problems will resolve themselves.
History shows otherwise.
The British government expected the private sector to resolve food distribution problems when the Great Famine struck Ireland in the 1840s. But merchants wanted to reap high profits from the increased demand for food, so the government in London did nothing to stop "famine profits." Large quantities of food grown in Ireland were exported. Result: Millions of people with no money to pay higher prices for food died of starvation.
In 1940, the U.S. government met fierce opposition to a plan that would limit profits, even as it encouraged war preparation. Manufacturers wanted the high profits from munitions sales, but the government banned "war profiteering."
In addition, a lack of government control can also cause a crisis. After the Wall Street Crash of 1929, when the financial system collapsed, commercial banks and investment banks were separated. Decades later, however, lifting the ban precipitated another financial crisis, and only government intervention saved financial institutions -- those deemed "too big to fail" -- from collapsing and taking depositor and investor funds down with them.
Economic theory is one thing. But when it doesn't work, reality requires government intervention.
Harvard economist Amartya Sen has shown that famines can be prevented if there is the political will to do so. There has not been widespread famine in India since independence in 1947.
Historian Christine Kinealy of Drew University has documented the export of food from Ireland in the 1840s even as millions starved.
Currently, drought in the American Midwest is destroying the corn crop, creating a shortage of food for livestock and for use in making ethanol for fuel.
Economics 101: Reduced supply as demand holds steady means higher prices. Consequently, farmers sell off their herds because they can't afford feed corn. In turn, this leads to higher prices for beef, etc., at the consumer level.
Meanwhile, federal laws requiring ethanol in fuel draws corn away from what might otherwise be used for food. And as the supply of corn drops and the price rises, costs are passed on to consumers for everything from meat to margarine to auto fuel.
Which brings us back to the opening question: Would you rather walk to work or bring your lunch? (Assuming, of course, that you have a job and money for food.)
So the failure of the corn crop and the subsequent widespread shortages and higher prices could well lead to famine in America.
Unless there is enough political will to prevent it. And that requires government intervention.
Friday, August 17, 2012
War Zones
News item: So far this year, 238 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. That's only slightly more than the total victims of gun violence in the City of Philadelphia.
Zealots and Politicians
"Ignore the premise of the question." -- Leo McGarry, fictional advisor to the President on "The West Wing" TV series
All politicians lie -- Pug Mahoney
There has been a noticeable change among TV interviewers when dealing with politicians. They remind the subject that he or she did not answer the question, following up with something like, "Are you, or are you not ... ?" This is a good change.
Candidates and elected officials from the President on down talk too much and say too little. Answer the question, candidates. Say what you have to say briefly and concisely, and move on. Otherwise, you give the impression that you don't really know what you're talking about, and you resort to speaking at length in the hope that an idea will come to you while you're prattling.
Heed the advice of Plato: Do not "return a long-winded harangue to every question, impeding the argument and evading the point, and speaking at such length that most of (your) hearers forget the question." (Protagoras, 336:c-d, Jowett translation)
The strategy of pettifoggery and gobbledygook mixed with bombast may sound good to the base of devoted followers, but to those who listen for intelligent ideas amid all the sound and fury, it prompts the question: How dumb do they think we are? The cynic's reply: Very.
Too often, we get the kind of government we deserve, not the kind we need.
All politicians lie -- Pug Mahoney
There has been a noticeable change among TV interviewers when dealing with politicians. They remind the subject that he or she did not answer the question, following up with something like, "Are you, or are you not ... ?" This is a good change.
Candidates and elected officials from the President on down talk too much and say too little. Answer the question, candidates. Say what you have to say briefly and concisely, and move on. Otherwise, you give the impression that you don't really know what you're talking about, and you resort to speaking at length in the hope that an idea will come to you while you're prattling.
Heed the advice of Plato: Do not "return a long-winded harangue to every question, impeding the argument and evading the point, and speaking at such length that most of (your) hearers forget the question." (Protagoras, 336:c-d, Jowett translation)
The strategy of pettifoggery and gobbledygook mixed with bombast may sound good to the base of devoted followers, but to those who listen for intelligent ideas amid all the sound and fury, it prompts the question: How dumb do they think we are? The cynic's reply: Very.
Too often, we get the kind of government we deserve, not the kind we need.
More Bits N Pieces
Beware of absolutes. Weave in enough qualifiers, and you too can be the best in your class. A hospital in Camden advertises itself as "the leading academic medical center in South Jersey." Question: How many others are there? There are other hospitals in southern New Jersey, but how many medical schools are there, and how many of these are combined operations?
Our favorite is the raceway, which proudly proclaimed itself "the fastest" high-banked, quarter-mile, macadam speedway "in the East." The Samurai Rim Man counts four qualifiers, which may make said speedway the only one, therefore it must be "the fastest."
Have you noticed that the first verse of the National Anthem is a series of questions? And there are no answers? ("Oh say, can you see ... ?")
Not only that, but the meter is the same one often used by Tony Soprano? ("Bah dah boom, bah dah boom, bah dah bing")
Pug Mahoney speaks: "A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing, but the answer is more education, not continued ignorance."
Fashion changes. Art endures.
Shetland sheep dog = Lassie lite.
Word play is foreplay to poetry.
Compassion fatigue is when friends get tired of hearing about your problems.
Lines I may never have the chance to use:
"She got in touch with her inner Hester Prynne."
"He was as upstanding and righteous as Arthur Dimmesdale."
Our favorite is the raceway, which proudly proclaimed itself "the fastest" high-banked, quarter-mile, macadam speedway "in the East." The Samurai Rim Man counts four qualifiers, which may make said speedway the only one, therefore it must be "the fastest."
Have you noticed that the first verse of the National Anthem is a series of questions? And there are no answers? ("Oh say, can you see ... ?")
Not only that, but the meter is the same one often used by Tony Soprano? ("Bah dah boom, bah dah boom, bah dah bing")
Pug Mahoney speaks: "A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing, but the answer is more education, not continued ignorance."
Fashion changes. Art endures.
Shetland sheep dog = Lassie lite.
Word play is foreplay to poetry.
Compassion fatigue is when friends get tired of hearing about your problems.
Lines I may never have the chance to use:
"She got in touch with her inner Hester Prynne."
"He was as upstanding and righteous as Arthur Dimmesdale."
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Border Security
We hear a lot about the need to keep out (illegal) immigrants and how important it is to close U.S. borders. But the odd thing is, it's only the southern border that is talked about. Isn't anyone worried about an influx of Canadians crossing the northern border and taking jobs away from "good Amurcans"?
Can you name ten people whose ancestors did not come to America from another country? Henry Ford's grandfather left Ireland for Canada, then walked across the border, entering the U.S. illegally. Since then, the Ford family seems to have prospered and contributed to the national prosperity.
Here's a partial list of people originally from Canada who have also contributed to the U.S. in many ways: Michael J. Fox, Robert McNeil, Lorne Greene, John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Anka, Pamela Anderson, Dan Ackroyd, William Shatner, Mort Sahl, Peter Jennings, Sarah McLachlan, Justin Bieber, Art Linkletter and Mike Myers.
Whether they became U.S. citizens or not, they worked, prospered and contributed to American prosperity for many years. Yet there has been no hue and cry about Canadians, no demand for them to carry identification, no calls for local police to check their status.
Is it because they blend? Is it because "they look like us"? Is it because they speak English, and don't "talk funny"?
Or is it that the fear of people crossing the southern border is based on racism?
Can you name ten people whose ancestors did not come to America from another country? Henry Ford's grandfather left Ireland for Canada, then walked across the border, entering the U.S. illegally. Since then, the Ford family seems to have prospered and contributed to the national prosperity.
Here's a partial list of people originally from Canada who have also contributed to the U.S. in many ways: Michael J. Fox, Robert McNeil, Lorne Greene, John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Anka, Pamela Anderson, Dan Ackroyd, William Shatner, Mort Sahl, Peter Jennings, Sarah McLachlan, Justin Bieber, Art Linkletter and Mike Myers.
Whether they became U.S. citizens or not, they worked, prospered and contributed to American prosperity for many years. Yet there has been no hue and cry about Canadians, no demand for them to carry identification, no calls for local police to check their status.
Is it because they blend? Is it because "they look like us"? Is it because they speak English, and don't "talk funny"?
Or is it that the fear of people crossing the southern border is based on racism?
Religion
"America is a Christian nation," proclaim the fundamentalists.
Except for the 6 million Jews, 5 million Muslims, 3 million Buddhists, 1.5 million Hindus, 1 million Baha'i, and 500,00 Sikhs, not to mention the 33 million who say they are non-religious or the 2 million atheists, as well as the millions more who are Zoroastrian, Shinto, Tao, Wiccan, Druid or who walk the Red Road of the Native American Tradition.
The Constitution guarantees not only Freedom of Religion; it also guarantees Freedom from Religion.
The First Amendment specifies that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."
Even more important, however, is the clause in Article VI in the main body of the Constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Both were reactions to laws in Britain at the time, which required that only members of the Established Church could serve in Parliament, or attend universities in Oxford and Cambridge.
This is not to criticize religion; it is to criticize hypocrisy. Some folks active in churches are about as spiritual as a piece of plywood -- and just as flexible.
Except for the 6 million Jews, 5 million Muslims, 3 million Buddhists, 1.5 million Hindus, 1 million Baha'i, and 500,00 Sikhs, not to mention the 33 million who say they are non-religious or the 2 million atheists, as well as the millions more who are Zoroastrian, Shinto, Tao, Wiccan, Druid or who walk the Red Road of the Native American Tradition.
The Constitution guarantees not only Freedom of Religion; it also guarantees Freedom from Religion.
The First Amendment specifies that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."
Even more important, however, is the clause in Article VI in the main body of the Constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Both were reactions to laws in Britain at the time, which required that only members of the Established Church could serve in Parliament, or attend universities in Oxford and Cambridge.
This is not to criticize religion; it is to criticize hypocrisy. Some folks active in churches are about as spiritual as a piece of plywood -- and just as flexible.
Politics and Economics
Politics, government and economics are inextricably linked. To pretend otherwise, or to preach the laissez-faire gospel of no government involvement in the economy is not only unrealistic, but also foolish.
Even if the only government contribution to a nation's economy were military defense spending, that would still be a major portion of total spending.
When consumer spending drops, suppliers reduce production. When suppliers reduce production, they also reduce their workforce. When people are out of work, they reduce their spending, which leads to further cuts in production. And so the cycle continues, and the economy recedes.
A proven way to reverse the downward spiral is for government to step in and make work available so people have money to spend on necessities such as food, clothing and shelter, as well as other goods and services. In turn, this generates jobs and income for other people who supply goods and services. And so the cycle continues, and the economy grows.
Money is the lifeblood of a modern economy. Any hemorrhaging of the money flow, through unemployment or a collapse of the financial system -- think bank failure or investment firm bankruptcy -- drains the lifeblood from the economic body.
How, then, to heal the sick patient? One set of economic physicians say it's best to leave the patient alone. Do nothing, they prescribe, and in the long run the economic body will heal itself.
But here's the risk question: How long is the long run, and what if the patient dies while waiting?
An alternate treatment would be a transfusion. And this is where Dr. Government intervenes. If the private sector is unable or unwilling to increase employment, which would provide consumers with more money to justify increased production, government can and should, thereby regenerating a cash flow -- the lifeblood of a modern economic system.
Even if the only government contribution to a nation's economy were military defense spending, that would still be a major portion of total spending.
When consumer spending drops, suppliers reduce production. When suppliers reduce production, they also reduce their workforce. When people are out of work, they reduce their spending, which leads to further cuts in production. And so the cycle continues, and the economy recedes.
A proven way to reverse the downward spiral is for government to step in and make work available so people have money to spend on necessities such as food, clothing and shelter, as well as other goods and services. In turn, this generates jobs and income for other people who supply goods and services. And so the cycle continues, and the economy grows.
Money is the lifeblood of a modern economy. Any hemorrhaging of the money flow, through unemployment or a collapse of the financial system -- think bank failure or investment firm bankruptcy -- drains the lifeblood from the economic body.
How, then, to heal the sick patient? One set of economic physicians say it's best to leave the patient alone. Do nothing, they prescribe, and in the long run the economic body will heal itself.
But here's the risk question: How long is the long run, and what if the patient dies while waiting?
An alternate treatment would be a transfusion. And this is where Dr. Government intervenes. If the private sector is unable or unwilling to increase employment, which would provide consumers with more money to justify increased production, government can and should, thereby regenerating a cash flow -- the lifeblood of a modern economic system.
Voter ID
There are 250 million people of voting age in America. Of that total, 146 million are registered to vote. Of those eligible and registered, only 131 million actually did vote in the 2008 presidential election, for a voter participation rate of 58 percent.
Over the past 12 years, there were some 2,000 reported cases of voter fraud, according to a study by News21, an investigative reporting group. Of those 2,000 cases, only 10 involved in-person voting. (Many of the rest were related to mail-in ballots, and others involved confusion and "honest mistakes" by either voters or election officials.
Bottom line: The demand that voter ID cards be shown at polling places before people cast their ballots affected one voter out of 15 million, according to the study.
That means that the hue and cry over voter fraud is over a "problem" that is "virtually nonexistent," the research study said.
The view from here is that the "problem" is not that there is too much fraud, but that there are not enough voters.
But given the behavior of the candidates, it's understandable why so many people choose not to participate.
However, if you don't go to the dance, you should not complain about the music.
Social Capitalism
An unfettered free market can easily go out of control and crash the economy. Check that; a laissez-faire economy (no government involvement) cannot go out of control, because there are no controls. Result: A wide range of abuses by participants.
Let's be blunt. "Exploitation" is what capitalists and entrepreneurs do -- they make use of resources (land, labor and capital) to provide products and services to consumers in the marketplace. But because of abusive behavior in the past, the term "exploitation" has acquired negative connotations -- a "dirty word," if you will.
At the other extreme of the spectrum is the concept of a fully controlled economy, subject to the whims and questionable competence of a government bureaucracy. Result: Inefficiency, and a failure to provide enough goods and services at decent quality for consumers.
In practice, both systems have been tried, and neither has worked. It's time, then, to focus more closely on something in the middle. Economics 101 teaches that we have what is called a "mixed system," somewhere between the full control by a socialist system and total lack of control in a laissez-faire system.
But our "mixed system" doesn't seem to be working, either. Maybe it's time to admit that and modify what we already have, calling it what it is -- Social Capitalism -- and make it work to benefit all members of society.
Two suggestions: Tax some profits to help care for the general welfare, including and expanding on what is already in place, which is a tax-based system to gather revenue for infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges, as well as provide services such as police and fire protection, and education. And rather than rely on altruism in the private sector to do this, the programs would be administered by government.
Oh, wait. That's what we have now.
Let's be blunt. "Exploitation" is what capitalists and entrepreneurs do -- they make use of resources (land, labor and capital) to provide products and services to consumers in the marketplace. But because of abusive behavior in the past, the term "exploitation" has acquired negative connotations -- a "dirty word," if you will.
At the other extreme of the spectrum is the concept of a fully controlled economy, subject to the whims and questionable competence of a government bureaucracy. Result: Inefficiency, and a failure to provide enough goods and services at decent quality for consumers.
In practice, both systems have been tried, and neither has worked. It's time, then, to focus more closely on something in the middle. Economics 101 teaches that we have what is called a "mixed system," somewhere between the full control by a socialist system and total lack of control in a laissez-faire system.
But our "mixed system" doesn't seem to be working, either. Maybe it's time to admit that and modify what we already have, calling it what it is -- Social Capitalism -- and make it work to benefit all members of society.
Two suggestions: Tax some profits to help care for the general welfare, including and expanding on what is already in place, which is a tax-based system to gather revenue for infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges, as well as provide services such as police and fire protection, and education. And rather than rely on altruism in the private sector to do this, the programs would be administered by government.
Oh, wait. That's what we have now.
Information Control
The first step toward dictatorship is information control.
Think about it. Historically, fascist movements harassed newspapers that disagreed with them, and when in power shut down opposition media. In other countries, governments own broadcast media, thus ensuring control of the message.
Currently, in Mexico and Colombia, drug cartels kidnap and kill journalists who report on their illegal activities.
In America, politicians berate and insult reporters who ask questions that are not "on message." And when they are in office, they use government resources to harass them in efforts to get favorable coverage. Examples: The Nixon Administration put the FBI on the trail of Woodward and Bernstein to uncover information to use against them, and threatened to lift the TV broadcast license of the Washington Post. And, of course, there was the infamous "enemies list." Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has called a reporter "stupid" in response to a question that was not on Christie's agenda that day. And Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois loudly berates those who disagree with him.
Is such behavior peculiar to Republicans? No. Lyndon Johnson, when in the Senate, provided Walter Cronkite a list of questions that he expected panelists on a TV interview program to ask. Cronkite refused. And the first question put to LBJ was one that the senator least wanted to deal with. Result: A very dull interview with a very angry Texan.
Even so, there seem to be more examples of Republicans damning those in what they call the "media elite" for asking questions that are not consistent with their "message."
Which leads to this thought: There is more danger to freedom from the radical right than from the liberal left.
Consider the examples of Argentina under Peron and Spain under Franco. Or others. Consider also these books: 1984, It Can't Happen Here, and The Plot To Seize The White House, a factual account of an effort to oust FDR and take over the government.
Can't happen here, you say? On the contrary, it can. And very nearly did.
Think about it.
Think about it. Historically, fascist movements harassed newspapers that disagreed with them, and when in power shut down opposition media. In other countries, governments own broadcast media, thus ensuring control of the message.
Currently, in Mexico and Colombia, drug cartels kidnap and kill journalists who report on their illegal activities.
In America, politicians berate and insult reporters who ask questions that are not "on message." And when they are in office, they use government resources to harass them in efforts to get favorable coverage. Examples: The Nixon Administration put the FBI on the trail of Woodward and Bernstein to uncover information to use against them, and threatened to lift the TV broadcast license of the Washington Post. And, of course, there was the infamous "enemies list." Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has called a reporter "stupid" in response to a question that was not on Christie's agenda that day. And Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois loudly berates those who disagree with him.
Is such behavior peculiar to Republicans? No. Lyndon Johnson, when in the Senate, provided Walter Cronkite a list of questions that he expected panelists on a TV interview program to ask. Cronkite refused. And the first question put to LBJ was one that the senator least wanted to deal with. Result: A very dull interview with a very angry Texan.
Even so, there seem to be more examples of Republicans damning those in what they call the "media elite" for asking questions that are not consistent with their "message."
Which leads to this thought: There is more danger to freedom from the radical right than from the liberal left.
Consider the examples of Argentina under Peron and Spain under Franco. Or others. Consider also these books: 1984, It Can't Happen Here, and The Plot To Seize The White House, a factual account of an effort to oust FDR and take over the government.
Can't happen here, you say? On the contrary, it can. And very nearly did.
Think about it.
Faith and by Gory
COMMENT -- From Dinty Ramble, our correspondent across the pond: "It is a brave person who starts a discussion about religion or politics; a foolish one will merge the two.
"These two topics have been intertwined for a very long time. Sadly the result has not been good. Consider the number of wars and conflicts that have occurred over the years. The Crusades were all about those two issues, and before that there were other conflicts. The Spanish Inquisition, the English Civil War, etc. followed suit. The mistrust between Shiites and Sunnis has resulted in much conflict over the centuries. In more recent times the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, then the 9/11 attack with all the consequences that followed.
"While many may think that the US does not have such a problem, you need only consider the worries many had about Jack Kennedy running for President. Many people now worry about Mitt Romney being a Mormon, and some are convinced that while Obama claims to be a Christian, he will not publicly admit that he is of another faith."
An interesting point, especially the note that it takes a foolish person to merge discussion of religion and politics. But you immediately point out that the two are merged, and have been for centuries.
I suggest that while the given reason for a war may be religion and/or politics, the real reason is economic. In the case of the Crusades, it was access to the spice trade, and the gouging by raiders along the route.
Also, there are many who maintain that Mormons are not Christians, but rather should be called "Joseph Smithians," after their founding prophet.
Meanwhile, the Constitution of the United States guarantees not only freedom of religion (First Amendment), but also freedom from religion (Article Six in the main body of that document). That section stipulates, "there shall be no religious test for any office of public trust." That was a reaction to the Test Act in the UK, which mandated that only members of the Established Church, the Anglican Communion, were eligible to hold office.
Therefore, in America, a candidate's religious or spiritual preferences cannot be a qualification, and should not even be an issue for discussion.
A person's spiritual path is a private matter. And too often, churches take the fun out of spirituality.
Think about it.
COME A-CROPPER -- The agent at the airline gate says to passengers, "This flight is completely full," or "very full" or "extremely full." There is no degree of fullness, notes our friend Lew Sichelman. The plane is either full or it isn't. If just one seat is empty, the plane is not full, tight as seating arrangements may be. Maybe almost full or nearly full but not full.
DESPAIR -- Several questions came in about the way to use "hopefully." The -ly ending shows it to be an adverb, modifying a verb and indicating the way one performs an action. In all other usages, the term adds nothing to the sentence. Strunk & White's Elements of Style, one of the best manuals ever published, says flatly, don't use it. And Edwin Newman, the broadcast guru on usage, had a plaque on his desk that read, "Abandon hopefully, all ye who enter here."
"These two topics have been intertwined for a very long time. Sadly the result has not been good. Consider the number of wars and conflicts that have occurred over the years. The Crusades were all about those two issues, and before that there were other conflicts. The Spanish Inquisition, the English Civil War, etc. followed suit. The mistrust between Shiites and Sunnis has resulted in much conflict over the centuries. In more recent times the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, then the 9/11 attack with all the consequences that followed.
"While many may think that the US does not have such a problem, you need only consider the worries many had about Jack Kennedy running for President. Many people now worry about Mitt Romney being a Mormon, and some are convinced that while Obama claims to be a Christian, he will not publicly admit that he is of another faith."
An interesting point, especially the note that it takes a foolish person to merge discussion of religion and politics. But you immediately point out that the two are merged, and have been for centuries.
I suggest that while the given reason for a war may be religion and/or politics, the real reason is economic. In the case of the Crusades, it was access to the spice trade, and the gouging by raiders along the route.
Also, there are many who maintain that Mormons are not Christians, but rather should be called "Joseph Smithians," after their founding prophet.
Meanwhile, the Constitution of the United States guarantees not only freedom of religion (First Amendment), but also freedom from religion (Article Six in the main body of that document). That section stipulates, "there shall be no religious test for any office of public trust." That was a reaction to the Test Act in the UK, which mandated that only members of the Established Church, the Anglican Communion, were eligible to hold office.
Therefore, in America, a candidate's religious or spiritual preferences cannot be a qualification, and should not even be an issue for discussion.
A person's spiritual path is a private matter. And too often, churches take the fun out of spirituality.
Think about it.
COME A-CROPPER -- The agent at the airline gate says to passengers, "This flight is completely full," or "very full" or "extremely full." There is no degree of fullness, notes our friend Lew Sichelman. The plane is either full or it isn't. If just one seat is empty, the plane is not full, tight as seating arrangements may be. Maybe almost full or nearly full but not full.
DESPAIR -- Several questions came in about the way to use "hopefully." The -ly ending shows it to be an adverb, modifying a verb and indicating the way one performs an action. In all other usages, the term adds nothing to the sentence. Strunk & White's Elements of Style, one of the best manuals ever published, says flatly, don't use it. And Edwin Newman, the broadcast guru on usage, had a plaque on his desk that read, "Abandon hopefully, all ye who enter here."
Politics vs Government
It's been said that politics is the art of the possible. Others insist there is a difference between the two, and maintain that they are in government, not in politics.
If there ever was a time when the two terms were interchangeable, or even related, that time is past.
We are not trapped in a vise of competing idealogies, each convinced that theirs is the one true faith, and the other side must be stopped at any cost.
Result: The multiple dangers of government shutdown, fiscal crisis, economic collapse and the threat of generalized failure throughout society.
If there ever was a time when the two terms were interchangeable, or even related, that time is past.
We are not trapped in a vise of competing idealogies, each convinced that theirs is the one true faith, and the other side must be stopped at any cost.
Result: The multiple dangers of government shutdown, fiscal crisis, economic collapse and the threat of generalized failure throughout society.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Irate Irish
If some news writers are to be believed, the Irish excel only at drinking and fighting. Our Dublin correspondent collected a few examples of 19th Century stereotypes perpetrated in reports on the London Olympics by media clowns around the world, even as they showed their ignorance of political reality.
For example, the Daily Telegraph in England had a headline, "Can anyone beat Britain's Katie Taylor?" The boxing gold medalist is Irish. The newspaper apologized.
Example 2: A commentator on ESPN Australia wanted to know why the Irish athletes do not compete for Great Britain in the Olympics. The answer is that Ireland is an independent nation, and has been for nearly a century. Moreover, Ireland has never been part of Great Britain. That term applies to the union of Scotland and England (and Wales), which happened during the reign of King James VI of Scotland, who became known as James I of England after the death of Queen Elizabeth I. That was in Shakespeare's time.
Example 3: A publication in Australia ran a piece about drunkenness and fighting among the Irish. After the Irish ambassador objected, the publisher apologized.
Example 4: USA Today reported that after Katie Taylor's victory, "Back home on the Emerald Green Isle, pints of Guinness flowed freely, perhaps enough to replenish the Irish Sea." The report also noted that bettors "wagered pounds as if they were bits of candy," and that the young boxer is from Bray county. The writer, one Joe Saraceno, also made references to scuffles and fighting, leading to another apology by USA Today after many people complained about the inference that the Irish drink and fight too much.
Corrections: Bray is a city in Ireland, not a county, and the nation has not used the pound as a monetary unit since joining the Euro Zone.
"As for the level of drink consumed," says our correspondent, "pubs in Ireland are closing at a great rate. Mr. Saraceno seems to have written his piece based on cliches rather than fact."
Editor's guideline: When in doubt, check it out. The problem is a lack of doubt. Too often, belief trumps fact.
For example, the Daily Telegraph in England had a headline, "Can anyone beat Britain's Katie Taylor?" The boxing gold medalist is Irish. The newspaper apologized.
Example 2: A commentator on ESPN Australia wanted to know why the Irish athletes do not compete for Great Britain in the Olympics. The answer is that Ireland is an independent nation, and has been for nearly a century. Moreover, Ireland has never been part of Great Britain. That term applies to the union of Scotland and England (and Wales), which happened during the reign of King James VI of Scotland, who became known as James I of England after the death of Queen Elizabeth I. That was in Shakespeare's time.
Example 3: A publication in Australia ran a piece about drunkenness and fighting among the Irish. After the Irish ambassador objected, the publisher apologized.
Example 4: USA Today reported that after Katie Taylor's victory, "Back home on the Emerald Green Isle, pints of Guinness flowed freely, perhaps enough to replenish the Irish Sea." The report also noted that bettors "wagered pounds as if they were bits of candy," and that the young boxer is from Bray county. The writer, one Joe Saraceno, also made references to scuffles and fighting, leading to another apology by USA Today after many people complained about the inference that the Irish drink and fight too much.
Corrections: Bray is a city in Ireland, not a county, and the nation has not used the pound as a monetary unit since joining the Euro Zone.
"As for the level of drink consumed," says our correspondent, "pubs in Ireland are closing at a great rate. Mr. Saraceno seems to have written his piece based on cliches rather than fact."
Editor's guideline: When in doubt, check it out. The problem is a lack of doubt. Too often, belief trumps fact.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Cooperative Adversaries
I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat -- Will Rogers
Compromise came to America because of necessity. There were so many divergent views that adjustments on both sides had to be made. Otherwise, the house divided would fall. And the extremist cry of "No surrender!" only leads to continued violence.
The Puritans came to America because they refused to compromise their religious beliefs -- they wanted to "purify" the church of practices that, for them, bordered on the Satanic. Once here, however, they could practice and enforce their own strict rules without interference.
In the small communities of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, this insistence on conformity worked well enough, since anyone who disagreed would either leave or face the harsh discipline of the puritanical leadership.
The irony is that in England, those who disagreed were called Nonconformists. And when Roger Williams disagreed, he left Massachusetts to start a new colony in Rhode Island.
"To the true believer in a Faith, the opponent is not only in error but in sin. Dissent is disapproved of not only intellectually but also morally. Their cannot be any excuse for (dissent) once the Message has been revealed."
So wrote economist Joseph Schumpeter in his 1942 book Democracy, Socialism and Capitalism. He was not referring to religion, however, but to Marxism.
Today, many subscribe to their economic doctrines with an almost religious fervor, and any who disagree are heretics, to be dealt with accordingly.
But what is a heretic, other than someone who disagrees with "established" doctrine?
The Puritan tradition in America is alive and well, and living in the hearts and minds of those who refuse to compromise.
Compromise came to America because of necessity. There were so many divergent views that adjustments on both sides had to be made. Otherwise, the house divided would fall. And the extremist cry of "No surrender!" only leads to continued violence.
The Puritans came to America because they refused to compromise their religious beliefs -- they wanted to "purify" the church of practices that, for them, bordered on the Satanic. Once here, however, they could practice and enforce their own strict rules without interference.
In the small communities of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, this insistence on conformity worked well enough, since anyone who disagreed would either leave or face the harsh discipline of the puritanical leadership.
The irony is that in England, those who disagreed were called Nonconformists. And when Roger Williams disagreed, he left Massachusetts to start a new colony in Rhode Island.
"To the true believer in a Faith, the opponent is not only in error but in sin. Dissent is disapproved of not only intellectually but also morally. Their cannot be any excuse for (dissent) once the Message has been revealed."
So wrote economist Joseph Schumpeter in his 1942 book Democracy, Socialism and Capitalism. He was not referring to religion, however, but to Marxism.
Today, many subscribe to their economic doctrines with an almost religious fervor, and any who disagree are heretics, to be dealt with accordingly.
But what is a heretic, other than someone who disagrees with "established" doctrine?
The Puritan tradition in America is alive and well, and living in the hearts and minds of those who refuse to compromise.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Hyphens
The proof of the hyp-hen is in the reading.
Hyphens may be the most misunderstood and misused punctuation marks in the language. And if we humans have trouble, what chance does a computer have? There are some basic rules for hyphenation, which are to be applied when justifying type and word breaks at the end of a line. Back in the day, people using typewriters and typesetters in composing rooms knew these rules, and applied them.
The first rule was to break a word on a syllable. But how to define syllable, especially with compound words like newspaper? Another rule is, in a cluster of three consonants, hyphenate after the first consonant. But that can lead to this example: new-spaper.
Saturday's New York Times (Aug. 11) perpetrated these two mis-breaks in the same issue: ultrar-ich; messa-ge.
In the first example, the machine did not recognize the two components, ultra- and rich. In the second, the machine failed to use yet another old rule that disallowed a remnant of only two letters.
What's needed is a better hyphe-nation progr-am to help compu-ters to justif-y their own exi-stence until they learn sem-antics and can apply the mea-nings of sy-llables when using hyp-hens.
Until then, we'll need more proofreaders to look at the pages before they go to the presses.
Hyphens may be the most misunderstood and misused punctuation marks in the language. And if we humans have trouble, what chance does a computer have? There are some basic rules for hyphenation, which are to be applied when justifying type and word breaks at the end of a line. Back in the day, people using typewriters and typesetters in composing rooms knew these rules, and applied them.
The first rule was to break a word on a syllable. But how to define syllable, especially with compound words like newspaper? Another rule is, in a cluster of three consonants, hyphenate after the first consonant. But that can lead to this example: new-spaper.
Saturday's New York Times (Aug. 11) perpetrated these two mis-breaks in the same issue: ultrar-ich; messa-ge.
In the first example, the machine did not recognize the two components, ultra- and rich. In the second, the machine failed to use yet another old rule that disallowed a remnant of only two letters.
What's needed is a better hyphe-nation progr-am to help compu-ters to justif-y their own exi-stence until they learn sem-antics and can apply the mea-nings of sy-llables when using hyp-hens.
Until then, we'll need more proofreaders to look at the pages before they go to the presses.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)