"I'm gonna pick up my marbles and go home," said the spoiled brat who couldn't get his own way.
Donald Trump has decided he won't attend the next debate among Republican presidential candidates, because Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly will be one of the moderators.
During an earlier session, Kelly challenged Trump on various disparaging remarks he had made about women. This prompted a next-day remark from Trump that Kelly must have been menstruating at the time, and that's why she wasn't being "fair" to him.
Curiously, for several weeks before the earlier debate, the candidate sent numerous complimentary messages to Kelly, praising her abilities. Kelly's response was to point out that he was trying to get on her good side so she would ask only easy questions.
It didn't work.
To the network's credit, Fox News said that Trump should know that he does not get to pick the journalists or the questions.
Not that he doesn't try.
Many reporters have pointed out that at campaign events, journalists are penned in at one side of the venue so they cannot get near the candidate or those who attend the rally.
Recently, after the British Parliament debated whether Trump should be banned from the United Kingdom for his anti-Muslim remarks, the developer-candidate threatened to withdraw his investments in Scottish golf courses. He would pick up his golf balls and go home.
Common among real estate agents and developers is the attitude that if someone -- especially a journalist -- is not an advocate for their position, that reporter is therefore an adversary, and to be treated as such.
Reporters are neither. They ask tough questions because they need to be asked. Megyn Kelly -- a news anchor at a major American TV network -- asks tough questions.
Claiming that anyone who does that or disagrees with anything he says is "unfair," only shows a bully's propensity to attempt to control everything.
That is not the attitude of an American presidential candidate, but that of a third-rate dictator.
And the more this particular candidate tries to control the media as well as the message, the tougher the questions from journalists will be.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Spell Check
Word processing programs on computers are wonderful things, and a great additional to the tools available to writers. It may be one of the grater inventions since the addition of erasers to pencils.
However. The spell chick tool, as with any other tool, is only as good as it's user. Why? Because it does not recognize context. Spell check looks over each work individually, and flag words it does not recognize. The word may indeed be spelled correctly and is used appropriately, but if it is not in the computer's lexicon, or word bank, the machine will flag it somehow.
More importantly, a word may be spelt correctly, and the computer will pass on it, but it may be quit the wrong word.
Want proof? This brief assay was submitted to spell check, and was approved. Nonetheless, there are twelve misused words in this fore brief paragraphs.
Can you find them? The computer didn't.
Moral: Use spell check, and always proofread your own copy. But you should never be the only one to proofread you copy.
However. The spell chick tool, as with any other tool, is only as good as it's user. Why? Because it does not recognize context. Spell check looks over each work individually, and flag words it does not recognize. The word may indeed be spelled correctly and is used appropriately, but if it is not in the computer's lexicon, or word bank, the machine will flag it somehow.
More importantly, a word may be spelt correctly, and the computer will pass on it, but it may be quit the wrong word.
Want proof? This brief assay was submitted to spell check, and was approved. Nonetheless, there are twelve misused words in this fore brief paragraphs.
Can you find them? The computer didn't.
Moral: Use spell check, and always proofread your own copy. But you should never be the only one to proofread you copy.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Econolanguage and Linguinomics
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with balderdash.
Economic prophecies can be self-fulfilling, and that's why growth predictions are almost always positive. At worst, government forecasters use words like "moderate," or perhaps "slow," with "some downside risk."
Besides, those in the private sector who see a decline as sure to come hedge their bets (investments) by selling short. That is, they will sell stock they don't have and their broker credits their account, in the expectation that the stock will be delivered later. Then, when delivery time comes, they can actually buy the stock at the lower price, give them to the broker and pocket the difference. And, of course, the steeper the decline, the more the profit.
Government forecasters, however, are usually vague if not obtuse when they see a strong likelihood of a downturn or recession, lest they be accused of being doomsayers or worse, and then be blamed for causing the recession.
Economists in the private sector, on the other hand, are not obliged or encouraged to speak openly of their negative views, since their job is to advise their employers. If they bet wrong and the boss loses money, advisors lose their jobs. Even if they're right, and the firm's business suffers, forecasters can lose their jobs in corporate downsizing.
Tenured academics, however, can warn of impending disaster as long as they want, but few people really want to hear that the sky is falling.
Economic prophecies can be self-fulfilling, and that's why growth predictions are almost always positive. At worst, government forecasters use words like "moderate," or perhaps "slow," with "some downside risk."
Besides, those in the private sector who see a decline as sure to come hedge their bets (investments) by selling short. That is, they will sell stock they don't have and their broker credits their account, in the expectation that the stock will be delivered later. Then, when delivery time comes, they can actually buy the stock at the lower price, give them to the broker and pocket the difference. And, of course, the steeper the decline, the more the profit.
Government forecasters, however, are usually vague if not obtuse when they see a strong likelihood of a downturn or recession, lest they be accused of being doomsayers or worse, and then be blamed for causing the recession.
Economists in the private sector, on the other hand, are not obliged or encouraged to speak openly of their negative views, since their job is to advise their employers. If they bet wrong and the boss loses money, advisors lose their jobs. Even if they're right, and the firm's business suffers, forecasters can lose their jobs in corporate downsizing.
Tenured academics, however, can warn of impending disaster as long as they want, but few people really want to hear that the sky is falling.
Story Telling
There's more than one way to tell a story.
Good story tellers know their audience, so they shape the story so it has more appeal to the target audience.
Comedians do this. Playwrights do it. Sports writers do it, slanting their phrasing to feature the home team. Political candidates do it, stressing certain policy points according to where they are and who they're talking to.
In the corporate world, that's called marketing and public relations, shaping the message for the most favorable appeal.
Journalists resent terms like bias and prejudice, which have negative connotations, but instead use words like angle, slant and perspective, which they perceive as neutral.
The reality, however, is that every story, whether fiction, drama, history, comedy or journalistic, is written from a perspective or angle, and is aimed at satisfying the emotional or intellectual needs and desires of an audience or readership.
Those who disagree with the treatment of a story are quick to dismiss it by labeling it as biased, prejudiced or simply wrong.
Disagreement doesn't always mean the other side is wrong and therefore evil.
Don't say "You're wrong." Instead, say "I disagree." For journalists, moreover, it's better to quote Speaker One, then provide evidence and information from Source Two, and readers decide who's wrong.
Good story tellers know their audience, so they shape the story so it has more appeal to the target audience.
Comedians do this. Playwrights do it. Sports writers do it, slanting their phrasing to feature the home team. Political candidates do it, stressing certain policy points according to where they are and who they're talking to.
In the corporate world, that's called marketing and public relations, shaping the message for the most favorable appeal.
Journalists resent terms like bias and prejudice, which have negative connotations, but instead use words like angle, slant and perspective, which they perceive as neutral.
The reality, however, is that every story, whether fiction, drama, history, comedy or journalistic, is written from a perspective or angle, and is aimed at satisfying the emotional or intellectual needs and desires of an audience or readership.
Those who disagree with the treatment of a story are quick to dismiss it by labeling it as biased, prejudiced or simply wrong.
Disagreement doesn't always mean the other side is wrong and therefore evil.
Don't say "You're wrong." Instead, say "I disagree." For journalists, moreover, it's better to quote Speaker One, then provide evidence and information from Source Two, and readers decide who's wrong.
Fill Words and Overtalk
How to prevent interruptions. Keep talking.
Yammer, yammer, yammer.
Courteous conversationalists wait for a pause before responding to another's comment. Courtesy, however, is often lacking, especially when some feel what they have to say is infinitely more important than whatever anyone else may have to say, so they jump in at the vaguest pause. Or they don't even wait for a pause. Meanwhile, as they rattle on, they rely on "fill words" to keep a sound level in their favor, so there isn't really a pause that might enable others to leap in to the conversation.
Here are some fill words that prattlers use to maintain some level of sound, indicating that they really are still talking: I mean, really, it's like, sort of, y'know, um, uh, that is, what I'm trying to say is ...
All these enable such speakers to keep their turns while trying to think of what they want to say next. Often, they don't really know what they want to say, but they're reluctant to yield their control of the talk session. That's not a conversation, but competitive yammering.
From our Dublin correspondent:
It has been reported that Bill O'Reilly of Fox News said if Bernie Sanders is elected President he (O'Reilly) will move to Ireland. Others have misgivings about Donald Trump supported by Sarah Palin and may also seek asylum.
I think it is time for Ireland to review its policy concerning political refugees and asylum seekers.
Yammer, yammer, yammer.
Courteous conversationalists wait for a pause before responding to another's comment. Courtesy, however, is often lacking, especially when some feel what they have to say is infinitely more important than whatever anyone else may have to say, so they jump in at the vaguest pause. Or they don't even wait for a pause. Meanwhile, as they rattle on, they rely on "fill words" to keep a sound level in their favor, so there isn't really a pause that might enable others to leap in to the conversation.
Here are some fill words that prattlers use to maintain some level of sound, indicating that they really are still talking: I mean, really, it's like, sort of, y'know, um, uh, that is, what I'm trying to say is ...
All these enable such speakers to keep their turns while trying to think of what they want to say next. Often, they don't really know what they want to say, but they're reluctant to yield their control of the talk session. That's not a conversation, but competitive yammering.
From our Dublin correspondent:
It has been reported that Bill O'Reilly of Fox News said if Bernie Sanders is elected President he (O'Reilly) will move to Ireland. Others have misgivings about Donald Trump supported by Sarah Palin and may also seek asylum.
I think it is time for Ireland to review its policy concerning political refugees and asylum seekers.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Media Message
Increasingly, mainstream media outlets are warning that economic weakness in other nations likely will drag down recovery in the U.S.
But because newsroom types believe economics is "too hard" for them to write about, the message is often slow to get out. This is not helped by the sputtering invective of presidential candidates, more interested in insulting opponents and media outlets than in stating understandable policies.
Granted, it's easier to report a fight than to describe a serious discussion, but that's a reason, not an excuse.
Meanwhile, conservatives continue their drumbeat of demands to reduce the size of government, assailing the rising government deficit. True, the Congressional Budget Office says the size of the federal deficit will increase next year as the economy recovers, from $439 billion in 2015 to $479 billion in 2016. But relative to the size of the economy, that's a rise of barely one-tenth of one percent, from 2.4 percent to 2.5 percent.
As the new century began, federal deficits declined as the nation climbed out of the 2000-02 recession, according to the web site usgovernmentspending.com, down to 1.1 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2007. "But the recession that started late in 2006 drove deficits higher," the group noted, to "nearly 10 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2009, driven mainly by bank bailouts under the TARP program."
Then, after the 2008 crash, the web site pointed out, "federal deficits started decreasing, getting to 4 percent of GDP in FY 2013 and 2.4 percent of GDP " last year.
It's interesting to note that deficits tend to rise when a Republican occupies the White House, and fall when a Democrat is President. There was a "five-year bulge in deficits" due to tax cuts and a defense buildup during the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, usgovspending said, and deficits "consistently declined year on year" when Democrat Bill Clinton was in office, from a deficit of 3.9 percent inherited from the Reagan Administration to a surplus of 2.3 percent in Clinton's final budget.
Tax cuts and recession, plus the Iraq war when Republican George W. Bush was President sent deficits up again, to 3.4 percent in FY 2004, followed by the Great Recession when deficits ballooned to 9.8 percent of GDP in the fiscal year ended in the summer of 2009.
Since then, Democratic President Barack Obama has presided over a decline in deficits to 2.4 percent.
Is total government spending on the rise? Yes. Is the deficit soaring again, as GOP candidates complain again? Total spending is indeed rising, but as a percent of total output, the deficit is barely moving.
GDP, by the way, the total value of all goods and services produced in America, is now more than $18 trillion, up from $17.5 trillion a year ago.
Writing about economic policy is not that hard to do. It takes a bit more thought -- perhaps one-tenth of one percent, similar to the forecast rise in the federal deficit this year -- but it can be done, partly by ignoring the invective spewed by some candidates and focusing instead on reality.
For more detail on the relationship of federal deficits as a percent of total output, visit http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_percent_gdp.
But because newsroom types believe economics is "too hard" for them to write about, the message is often slow to get out. This is not helped by the sputtering invective of presidential candidates, more interested in insulting opponents and media outlets than in stating understandable policies.
Granted, it's easier to report a fight than to describe a serious discussion, but that's a reason, not an excuse.
Meanwhile, conservatives continue their drumbeat of demands to reduce the size of government, assailing the rising government deficit. True, the Congressional Budget Office says the size of the federal deficit will increase next year as the economy recovers, from $439 billion in 2015 to $479 billion in 2016. But relative to the size of the economy, that's a rise of barely one-tenth of one percent, from 2.4 percent to 2.5 percent.
As the new century began, federal deficits declined as the nation climbed out of the 2000-02 recession, according to the web site usgovernmentspending.com, down to 1.1 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2007. "But the recession that started late in 2006 drove deficits higher," the group noted, to "nearly 10 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2009, driven mainly by bank bailouts under the TARP program."
Then, after the 2008 crash, the web site pointed out, "federal deficits started decreasing, getting to 4 percent of GDP in FY 2013 and 2.4 percent of GDP " last year.
It's interesting to note that deficits tend to rise when a Republican occupies the White House, and fall when a Democrat is President. There was a "five-year bulge in deficits" due to tax cuts and a defense buildup during the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, usgovspending said, and deficits "consistently declined year on year" when Democrat Bill Clinton was in office, from a deficit of 3.9 percent inherited from the Reagan Administration to a surplus of 2.3 percent in Clinton's final budget.
Tax cuts and recession, plus the Iraq war when Republican George W. Bush was President sent deficits up again, to 3.4 percent in FY 2004, followed by the Great Recession when deficits ballooned to 9.8 percent of GDP in the fiscal year ended in the summer of 2009.
Since then, Democratic President Barack Obama has presided over a decline in deficits to 2.4 percent.
Is total government spending on the rise? Yes. Is the deficit soaring again, as GOP candidates complain again? Total spending is indeed rising, but as a percent of total output, the deficit is barely moving.
GDP, by the way, the total value of all goods and services produced in America, is now more than $18 trillion, up from $17.5 trillion a year ago.
Writing about economic policy is not that hard to do. It takes a bit more thought -- perhaps one-tenth of one percent, similar to the forecast rise in the federal deficit this year -- but it can be done, partly by ignoring the invective spewed by some candidates and focusing instead on reality.
For more detail on the relationship of federal deficits as a percent of total output, visit http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_percent_gdp.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Progressivism
Hypocrisy is rampant.
Whatever happened to the sense of moral responsibility to help the needy that marked so many and led to the Progressive Party, led by Theodore Roosevelt?
It's ironic that the Republican Party, with its huge base of so-called evangelicals, has come so far from those days and now cares so little about social welfare.
Or maybe it's just the knee-jerk political reactionism that requires opponents to campaign against something that they themselves may have proposed in the past but now object to because someone else might get a small amount of credit for putting the program in place. Remember Mitt Romney's assault on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) set up by Democrats, even though the format was identical to the one arranged by Republican Romney as governor of Massachusetts?
Perhaps it's time for those who advocate social welfare to label themselves Progressives rather than Socialists. Then again, the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party in the early 20th Century, and Democrats today are not likely to use a label that was once applied to renegade Republicans.
Whatever happened to the sense of moral responsibility to help the needy that marked so many and led to the Progressive Party, led by Theodore Roosevelt?
It's ironic that the Republican Party, with its huge base of so-called evangelicals, has come so far from those days and now cares so little about social welfare.
Or maybe it's just the knee-jerk political reactionism that requires opponents to campaign against something that they themselves may have proposed in the past but now object to because someone else might get a small amount of credit for putting the program in place. Remember Mitt Romney's assault on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) set up by Democrats, even though the format was identical to the one arranged by Republican Romney as governor of Massachusetts?
Perhaps it's time for those who advocate social welfare to label themselves Progressives rather than Socialists. Then again, the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party in the early 20th Century, and Democrats today are not likely to use a label that was once applied to renegade Republicans.
Style Standards
A rule book on writing style is no more than a guide to consistency of usage, and in many ways it is arbitrary, reflecting the preferences of the editor in charge.
Grammar is another issue, and its rules are more widely accepted by speakers and writers of a language or dialect.
Writers can sometimes feel trapped and confused when they cannot separate the rules of grammar from arbitrary -- even capricious -- rules of style.
For example, when dealing with percentages, should one spell out a number or use numerals? Should percent be one word or two -- per cent? Or abbreviated (pct.), or the symbol (%)? The choices are nine percent, nine per cent, 9 pct. and 9%.
Which is "correct"? Answer: They all are.
Which is preferred? Answer: The one the editor likes. And that, friends, is arbitrary.
There are, however, some guidelines that can be considered in deciding which form to use. When writing about percentages, it's better to use numerals in all instances, partly because spelling out a fraction or a decimal is unwieldy. Seventeen-and-three-quarters percent, for example. Use 17.75 percent instead. That yields not only an easier read, with no hyphens, and you avoid the complication of opening a sentence with a numeral by using an approximation word or phrase -- some, more than, almost, for example.
Inconsistent forms distract readers from the message when they are forced to stop and mentally recalculate how one relates to another. Don't mix decimal numerals and fractions, for instance.
A writer's task is to communicate. Don't force readers to decipher what you mean. Whichever form you decide to use, or the editor tells you to use, be consistent, and apply the same principle throughout your writing.
Grammar is another issue, and its rules are more widely accepted by speakers and writers of a language or dialect.
Writers can sometimes feel trapped and confused when they cannot separate the rules of grammar from arbitrary -- even capricious -- rules of style.
For example, when dealing with percentages, should one spell out a number or use numerals? Should percent be one word or two -- per cent? Or abbreviated (pct.), or the symbol (%)? The choices are nine percent, nine per cent, 9 pct. and 9%.
Which is "correct"? Answer: They all are.
Which is preferred? Answer: The one the editor likes. And that, friends, is arbitrary.
There are, however, some guidelines that can be considered in deciding which form to use. When writing about percentages, it's better to use numerals in all instances, partly because spelling out a fraction or a decimal is unwieldy. Seventeen-and-three-quarters percent, for example. Use 17.75 percent instead. That yields not only an easier read, with no hyphens, and you avoid the complication of opening a sentence with a numeral by using an approximation word or phrase -- some, more than, almost, for example.
Inconsistent forms distract readers from the message when they are forced to stop and mentally recalculate how one relates to another. Don't mix decimal numerals and fractions, for instance.
A writer's task is to communicate. Don't force readers to decipher what you mean. Whichever form you decide to use, or the editor tells you to use, be consistent, and apply the same principle throughout your writing.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Capital Circus
Good writing sells itself.
Computers are wonderful devices, and are capable of combining many type sizes and faces, including Roman, Italic and dozens of others, plus underlining and using all capital letters.
The temptation is gruesome, even to the extent of using colors to "brighten up" the presentation.
But be careful. Any art amateur can tell you that without enough contrast, readability suffers. So also with using all caps, LIKE THIS, WHEN YOU REALLY WANT THE READER TO FOCUS ON WHAT'S BEING SAID.
It's like hitting readers over their heads to get their attention. A basic typography principle is that all-capital lettering is harder to read than standard upper-and-lower case type.
Conclusion: Don't use all caps.
Likewise, it's possible to use such variations as italic, bold face, underlined and all caps, or even using all at once, plus multiple explanation marks, so you get this: LOOK!!! HOW WONDERFUL THIS PRODUCT REALLY IS !!!!!!
But if your writing is not persuasive, no amount of typographical gimmickry will sell the product. Especially with information, the basic product of journalistic writing.
Computers are wonderful devices, and are capable of combining many type sizes and faces, including Roman, Italic and dozens of others, plus underlining and using all capital letters.
The temptation is gruesome, even to the extent of using colors to "brighten up" the presentation.
But be careful. Any art amateur can tell you that without enough contrast, readability suffers. So also with using all caps, LIKE THIS, WHEN YOU REALLY WANT THE READER TO FOCUS ON WHAT'S BEING SAID.
It's like hitting readers over their heads to get their attention. A basic typography principle is that all-capital lettering is harder to read than standard upper-and-lower case type.
Conclusion: Don't use all caps.
Likewise, it's possible to use such variations as italic, bold face, underlined and all caps, or even using all at once, plus multiple explanation marks, so you get this: LOOK!!! HOW WONDERFUL THIS PRODUCT REALLY IS !!!!!!
But if your writing is not persuasive, no amount of typographical gimmickry will sell the product. Especially with information, the basic product of journalistic writing.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
The S Word
The yammering punditocracy has begun using the term "the S word" when speaking of Bernie Sanders and his economic social welfare policies. And they delight in describing the presidential candidate as a "self-proclaimed socialist." But this acknowledges the decades-old Red Scare that gripped America during the Cold War, and stokes the fires of fear that the U.S. would be conquered by the dictatorial Communism as practiced in Soviet Russia.
But the reality remains that socialism has been in place in America for nearly 80 years, in the form of social welfare policies such as Social Security, unemployment compensation and protection for unionized workers, and more recent programs including Medicare and Medicaid, as well as universal education and other programs, plus the movement toward universal health care.
Much as radical conservatives rant about government intrusion into citizen lives, would they dare abolish these social welfare program? They talk about it, warning of potential government control of individual rights, but what they really fear is government limitations on corporate abuses and efforts to close the income gap, which enables an elite few to increase their wealth at the expense of the many.
Meanwhile, as the Democratic candidates try to insert some comments on economic policy into their debates, Republicans rattle on about government interference on individual rights -- especially the right to carry assault rifles in public, even for teachers to carry guns in schools -- little if anything is said about economic policy, except demanding that the health care program and other social welfare systems be abolished.
All in the name of protecting American citizens from "authoritarian socialism." But we already have a growing, beneficial social welfare program in the U.S., and it's happening without the alleged "authoritarian dictatorship."
It's the old "straw man" strategy. Set up a fearsome-looking figure, accuse it of having nefarious intentions, and then attack it as a looming danger to society. But while a scarecrow may frighten hungry birds from a cornfield, people recognize a dummy when they see it.
But the reality remains that socialism has been in place in America for nearly 80 years, in the form of social welfare policies such as Social Security, unemployment compensation and protection for unionized workers, and more recent programs including Medicare and Medicaid, as well as universal education and other programs, plus the movement toward universal health care.
Much as radical conservatives rant about government intrusion into citizen lives, would they dare abolish these social welfare program? They talk about it, warning of potential government control of individual rights, but what they really fear is government limitations on corporate abuses and efforts to close the income gap, which enables an elite few to increase their wealth at the expense of the many.
Meanwhile, as the Democratic candidates try to insert some comments on economic policy into their debates, Republicans rattle on about government interference on individual rights -- especially the right to carry assault rifles in public, even for teachers to carry guns in schools -- little if anything is said about economic policy, except demanding that the health care program and other social welfare systems be abolished.
All in the name of protecting American citizens from "authoritarian socialism." But we already have a growing, beneficial social welfare program in the U.S., and it's happening without the alleged "authoritarian dictatorship."
It's the old "straw man" strategy. Set up a fearsome-looking figure, accuse it of having nefarious intentions, and then attack it as a looming danger to society. But while a scarecrow may frighten hungry birds from a cornfield, people recognize a dummy when they see it.
Gender Games
A feminist linguistics professor insisted that the feminine pronoun should always be used when citing comments from a corporate or government source, even when that person has asked for anonymity.
The problem, as the working journalist in the class noted, was that despite requests to be an anonymous source, using the pronouns "she" and "her" immediately reduces the field of possible suspects when management looks to identify the source.
The solution is to phrase source comments in the plural, and write the sentence accordingly. It also eliminates the clumsiness of mismatched pronoun/verb construction, such as "everyone ... their" or "every person ... his/her" or using "them" as a singular non-gender pronoun. Go to the plural.
There is a singular non-gender, or neuter, pronoun available in modern English -- "it" for the nominative and "its" for the possessive. These, however, are generally used in reference to things and animals, not people. There is also a neuter (non-gender) pronoun available for the objective -- "hem." It's still used, except that the beginning "h" was dropped, and an apostrophe was inserted to indicate a letter was dropped.
Thus, we have phrases like "Go get 'em," which is not a shortened "them" but rather a shortened "hem." The full set of singular pronouns in the objective case comprised "him, her, hem." The initial "h" was also dropped in some British dialects from "his" and "hers." But the "h" was retained in parts of the rural American South for the neuter pronoun "hit."
Confusing? Perhaps. Consistent? No. Logical? Never. But as noted 'ere earlier, logic don't enter into hit.
The problem, as the working journalist in the class noted, was that despite requests to be an anonymous source, using the pronouns "she" and "her" immediately reduces the field of possible suspects when management looks to identify the source.
The solution is to phrase source comments in the plural, and write the sentence accordingly. It also eliminates the clumsiness of mismatched pronoun/verb construction, such as "everyone ... their" or "every person ... his/her" or using "them" as a singular non-gender pronoun. Go to the plural.
There is a singular non-gender, or neuter, pronoun available in modern English -- "it" for the nominative and "its" for the possessive. These, however, are generally used in reference to things and animals, not people. There is also a neuter (non-gender) pronoun available for the objective -- "hem." It's still used, except that the beginning "h" was dropped, and an apostrophe was inserted to indicate a letter was dropped.
Thus, we have phrases like "Go get 'em," which is not a shortened "them" but rather a shortened "hem." The full set of singular pronouns in the objective case comprised "him, her, hem." The initial "h" was also dropped in some British dialects from "his" and "hers." But the "h" was retained in parts of the rural American South for the neuter pronoun "hit."
Confusing? Perhaps. Consistent? No. Logical? Never. But as noted 'ere earlier, logic don't enter into hit.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Demand Side Economics
"Deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney
The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the U.S. economy "will expand solidly through this year and next," driven by increases in demand for goods and services.
In turn, this will attract more workers, which should reduce the unemployment rate and boost wages, the CBO said.
As the economy improves, however, this will also push up inflation and interest rates, but over all, the economy is likely to grow more quickly through the next ten years than it has in the past ten years.
The downside, however, is that the federal deficit will increase -- relative to the size of the economy -- for the first time since 2009.
If you make it, they will buy, say the supply siders. But without jobs and income, there is no demand, and no amount of increasing supply can induce people to buy anything with money they don't have. Another issue is that wages have not kept pace with inflation, and the unemployment rate, while stable, is not yet at the level economists call a full employment rates. Perhaps that will happen over the next ten years, assuming the CBO predictions are good.
As for a federal deficit, sometimes that's needed to help kickstart a sputtering economy and to help it along while it achieves momentum. So has the economy done that, and will it keep rolling despite slowdowns in the rest of the world?
Good question. Stay tuned.
The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the U.S. economy "will expand solidly through this year and next," driven by increases in demand for goods and services.
In turn, this will attract more workers, which should reduce the unemployment rate and boost wages, the CBO said.
As the economy improves, however, this will also push up inflation and interest rates, but over all, the economy is likely to grow more quickly through the next ten years than it has in the past ten years.
The downside, however, is that the federal deficit will increase -- relative to the size of the economy -- for the first time since 2009.
If you make it, they will buy, say the supply siders. But without jobs and income, there is no demand, and no amount of increasing supply can induce people to buy anything with money they don't have. Another issue is that wages have not kept pace with inflation, and the unemployment rate, while stable, is not yet at the level economists call a full employment rates. Perhaps that will happen over the next ten years, assuming the CBO predictions are good.
As for a federal deficit, sometimes that's needed to help kickstart a sputtering economy and to help it along while it achieves momentum. So has the economy done that, and will it keep rolling despite slowdowns in the rest of the world?
Good question. Stay tuned.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Braggart Brigade
Say something long enough and loud enough to enough people often enough and some will start to believe it. Especially if you can out-talk the competition.
Competitive talking is when you talk longer, louder and say less than the other guy. That way you "win" the contest.
Sadly, the Republican "debates" have become talking contests. Questions are ignored, answers avoided and no specifics offered, but personal insults thrive among the braggart brigade.
In contrast, it was amusing to watch the three Democratic candidates stumble around looking for something they disagree on.
Competitive talking is when you talk longer, louder and say less than the other guy. That way you "win" the contest.
Sadly, the Republican "debates" have become talking contests. Questions are ignored, answers avoided and no specifics offered, but personal insults thrive among the braggart brigade.
In contrast, it was amusing to watch the three Democratic candidates stumble around looking for something they disagree on.
Believability Quotient
"If you see it in The Sun, it's true." -- Young father to his daughter, prompting the editorial, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."
A picture is worth a thousand words, goes the old saying, and that's probably because it has a higher Believability Quotient (BQ). Not only that, but it takes up less space in print.
Consider this: People are more likely to believe something they see in print than if they hear it from a neighbor over back-fence gossip. When a newspaper adds a picture, whether a cartoon or a photograph, the story's BQ rises.
Television adds sound and movement to the spoken word, so it has an even higher BQ. However, with that higher BQ comes more responsibility.
The best broadcast journalists are aware of this, and follow the high principles of traditional print news reporting. But here, as in so many things, the Law of Supply and Demand applies. High demand can soon outstrip the available supply of qualified, competent journalists. In addition, the compensation factor applies. You get what you pay for, and if publishers and broadcasters want good writers and reporters, they'll have to pay accordingly. Unfortunately, that's not always the case, as publishers and managers content themselves with mediocrity, so the best go to other professions or to bigger cities. Similarly, teachers leave that trade for other fields that pay more.
But that's another story. The point is that for journalism to keep its needed reputation for believability, it must focus on accuracy and fairness as well as on good writing and presentation. Why? As any marketing manager knows, packaging sells the product. But if the product -- in this case news and information -- is not good, no amount of flashy packaging can save it from losing market share. In journalism, that means readership and viewers.
And pictures, cartoons or photographs, can add to a story's believability.
Or as the Tammany Hall leader explained his dislike for political cartoonist Thomas Nast in the 19th Century, "My constituents can't read," so the text doesn't matter.
A picture is worth a thousand words, goes the old saying, and that's probably because it has a higher Believability Quotient (BQ). Not only that, but it takes up less space in print.
Consider this: People are more likely to believe something they see in print than if they hear it from a neighbor over back-fence gossip. When a newspaper adds a picture, whether a cartoon or a photograph, the story's BQ rises.
Television adds sound and movement to the spoken word, so it has an even higher BQ. However, with that higher BQ comes more responsibility.
The best broadcast journalists are aware of this, and follow the high principles of traditional print news reporting. But here, as in so many things, the Law of Supply and Demand applies. High demand can soon outstrip the available supply of qualified, competent journalists. In addition, the compensation factor applies. You get what you pay for, and if publishers and broadcasters want good writers and reporters, they'll have to pay accordingly. Unfortunately, that's not always the case, as publishers and managers content themselves with mediocrity, so the best go to other professions or to bigger cities. Similarly, teachers leave that trade for other fields that pay more.
But that's another story. The point is that for journalism to keep its needed reputation for believability, it must focus on accuracy and fairness as well as on good writing and presentation. Why? As any marketing manager knows, packaging sells the product. But if the product -- in this case news and information -- is not good, no amount of flashy packaging can save it from losing market share. In journalism, that means readership and viewers.
And pictures, cartoons or photographs, can add to a story's believability.
Or as the Tammany Hall leader explained his dislike for political cartoonist Thomas Nast in the 19th Century, "My constituents can't read," so the text doesn't matter.
Cookie Monster Grammar
"Me go to store, get cookie." -- Sesame Street's Cookie Monster
The perpendicular pronoun no longer stands tall in popular usage. Pronouns in the objective case have taken charge.
As a result, we hear so-called professional users of the language on television news broadcasts say things like, "Me and him went to the scene ..."
The preferred phrasing is "He and I" when referring to two people. The same broadcasters have no problem saying, "I went ..." and "He went ..." but when paired, the pronouns leave the subjective, or nominative case and stumble into the objective.
It's understandable that few students know much about this grammatical field, because the case system no longer exists in English language, with one exception -- pronouns.
What is the case system? It's when a word changes its form according to its function in a sentence. And while some languages have four or more sets of endings -- nominative, genitive, dative and accusative, for example -- the English language has none. With the exception of pronouns.
Otherwise, grammar school teachers some 50 years ago inflicted the above four terms on unsuspecting students to describe the case system. Example: The man, of the man, to the man, for the man. Notice that the relevant noun "man" does not change. With pronouns, however, the terms are I, me, mine; he/she, him/her; his/hers. The word changes its form according to its function.
Other than the pronoun set, the English language dropped this system centuries ago as it evolved to an amalgamation of Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, Celtic and Danish as well as Latin and Greek.
Several others in the Romance language group -- French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, for example -- also dropped the case system, again with the exception of the pronoun sets.
The point to remember is that while language constantly changes, with new words and phrases added yearly, if not monthly, there are standards that help to facilitate communication. And that remains the purpose of language -- communication, because if the reader or listener does not understand what you write or say, you have failed to communicate.
The perpendicular pronoun no longer stands tall in popular usage. Pronouns in the objective case have taken charge.
As a result, we hear so-called professional users of the language on television news broadcasts say things like, "Me and him went to the scene ..."
The preferred phrasing is "He and I" when referring to two people. The same broadcasters have no problem saying, "I went ..." and "He went ..." but when paired, the pronouns leave the subjective, or nominative case and stumble into the objective.
It's understandable that few students know much about this grammatical field, because the case system no longer exists in English language, with one exception -- pronouns.
What is the case system? It's when a word changes its form according to its function in a sentence. And while some languages have four or more sets of endings -- nominative, genitive, dative and accusative, for example -- the English language has none. With the exception of pronouns.
Otherwise, grammar school teachers some 50 years ago inflicted the above four terms on unsuspecting students to describe the case system. Example: The man, of the man, to the man, for the man. Notice that the relevant noun "man" does not change. With pronouns, however, the terms are I, me, mine; he/she, him/her; his/hers. The word changes its form according to its function.
Other than the pronoun set, the English language dropped this system centuries ago as it evolved to an amalgamation of Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, Celtic and Danish as well as Latin and Greek.
Several others in the Romance language group -- French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, for example -- also dropped the case system, again with the exception of the pronoun sets.
The point to remember is that while language constantly changes, with new words and phrases added yearly, if not monthly, there are standards that help to facilitate communication. And that remains the purpose of language -- communication, because if the reader or listener does not understand what you write or say, you have failed to communicate.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Language and Logic
Whorf speed, Mr. Chomsky.
"I can't do that, Dave." -- Hal
"That does not compute." -- Mr. Spock
Logic uses language to express and analyze concepts and relationships, but language itself is not logical.
There is no reason why an item or concept is labeled by one word in one language but by something entirely different in another. It just is.
Speakers of English may say it's "logical" to call a four-legged canine a "dog" while the French use the term "chien," which is not logical. No, it isn't logical. It just is.
Those in one culture may see seven colors in a rainbow while others see only five. No logic, here. It just is. The light spectrum is infinite, and members of yet another culture may be able to "see" more than seven colors in a rainbow, even as we can perceive many shades of red.
As for time, consider the famous Whorfian Hypothesis, beloved of linguistic and sociology students. According to Benjamin Lee Whorf, speakers of a certain tribal language in the American Southwest had no word for time, so he concluded they had no concept of time.
Example: How long does it take to build a house?
Tribal answer: First you lay the foundation, then you build the walls, and when that's finished you add a roof.
Questioner: Yes, but how many days does that take?
The speaker is unable to respond in his native tongue, because the concept of time and measuring it has little relevance in his culture. Yet if he switches to English, he can provide a detailed explanation, down to the number of hours and minutes for each segment of the job. That's because people of English-speaking cultures are in many ways locked in to measuring the passage of time.
It's not that tribal speakers could not conceive of time, but that insisting a job be done within a certain allotted time frame is not relevant to their culture or way of life.
Logic don't enter into it.
As well ask, why is a banana?
Because it's not an apple.
"I can't do that, Dave." -- Hal
"That does not compute." -- Mr. Spock
Logic uses language to express and analyze concepts and relationships, but language itself is not logical.
There is no reason why an item or concept is labeled by one word in one language but by something entirely different in another. It just is.
Speakers of English may say it's "logical" to call a four-legged canine a "dog" while the French use the term "chien," which is not logical. No, it isn't logical. It just is.
Those in one culture may see seven colors in a rainbow while others see only five. No logic, here. It just is. The light spectrum is infinite, and members of yet another culture may be able to "see" more than seven colors in a rainbow, even as we can perceive many shades of red.
As for time, consider the famous Whorfian Hypothesis, beloved of linguistic and sociology students. According to Benjamin Lee Whorf, speakers of a certain tribal language in the American Southwest had no word for time, so he concluded they had no concept of time.
Example: How long does it take to build a house?
Tribal answer: First you lay the foundation, then you build the walls, and when that's finished you add a roof.
Questioner: Yes, but how many days does that take?
The speaker is unable to respond in his native tongue, because the concept of time and measuring it has little relevance in his culture. Yet if he switches to English, he can provide a detailed explanation, down to the number of hours and minutes for each segment of the job. That's because people of English-speaking cultures are in many ways locked in to measuring the passage of time.
It's not that tribal speakers could not conceive of time, but that insisting a job be done within a certain allotted time frame is not relevant to their culture or way of life.
Logic don't enter into it.
As well ask, why is a banana?
Because it's not an apple.
Perspective
News reporting is easy.
You just go to where the action is, take notes on what happened, along with who said what, where it happened, when and why. Plus how it happened.
Then you select the most important parts of each of the Five Ws and tell the story.
Keep it to six paragraphs, says your editor, because that's all the space available for that particular story.
Easy, right?
Sure.
When a major political candidate visits your home town and speaks for an hour, the reporter assigned to the event has to condense the speech into perhaps 500 words -- about 12 column inches of text in a newspaper.
That's easy too, right?
Sure.
Except that supporters of the candidate want a full verbatim transcript of every hallowed word. Not going to happen. Why? No space.
Besides, the opposing candidate will want equal space. Meanwhile, the featured speaker will accuse the reporter and editor of bias, prejudice, incompetence and a few other choice words not used in polite company if the story is the least bit negative in any way. To politicians, neutrality is negative.
That's not news, it's propaganda.
Similar principles apply to television. Candidates may want every station and network to carry every moment of every appearance everywhere, without commentary or analysis.
Reporters and editors have the duty, responsibility and obligation to present the news impartially. A major part of that is deciding what is newsworthy and what is prattle, and these decisions are by nature selective.
Judgmental? Yes. The issue, then, is one of perception: Selective to one side is biased to the other. Reporters and editors are indeed selective. Biased? Not necessarily, although that is one of the risks of having a free press and the guarantee of free speech. Reporters care most about writing a good story. And yes, that's judgmental.
You just go to where the action is, take notes on what happened, along with who said what, where it happened, when and why. Plus how it happened.
Then you select the most important parts of each of the Five Ws and tell the story.
Keep it to six paragraphs, says your editor, because that's all the space available for that particular story.
Easy, right?
Sure.
When a major political candidate visits your home town and speaks for an hour, the reporter assigned to the event has to condense the speech into perhaps 500 words -- about 12 column inches of text in a newspaper.
That's easy too, right?
Sure.
Except that supporters of the candidate want a full verbatim transcript of every hallowed word. Not going to happen. Why? No space.
Besides, the opposing candidate will want equal space. Meanwhile, the featured speaker will accuse the reporter and editor of bias, prejudice, incompetence and a few other choice words not used in polite company if the story is the least bit negative in any way. To politicians, neutrality is negative.
That's not news, it's propaganda.
Similar principles apply to television. Candidates may want every station and network to carry every moment of every appearance everywhere, without commentary or analysis.
Reporters and editors have the duty, responsibility and obligation to present the news impartially. A major part of that is deciding what is newsworthy and what is prattle, and these decisions are by nature selective.
Judgmental? Yes. The issue, then, is one of perception: Selective to one side is biased to the other. Reporters and editors are indeed selective. Biased? Not necessarily, although that is one of the risks of having a free press and the guarantee of free speech. Reporters care most about writing a good story. And yes, that's judgmental.
Friday, January 15, 2016
Bearing Down
So which is better, to come late to the party or to leave early before everyone else gets stoned?
Financial advisors are fond of warning against trying to time the market, because predicting human behavior is always risky.
Nonetheless, whether stock prices continue to fall into a bear market slumber or recover quickly from its correction cat nap is open to debate. And yes, while cynicism is endemic among journalists and anathema to speculators, it remains true that stock market indexes on Wall Street stumbled again Friday as investors paid increasing attention to economic conditions in the rest of the world.
Will the market crash as it did in 1929, 2000 and 2008? There are some who have already started to cry wolf. Fortune.com is quoting Albert Edwards of Societe Generale as predicting a Wall Street plunge of as much as 75 percent. USA Today noted that the stock market has drained $1.5 trillion in value just in the past two weeks.
Some call it only a "correction," which is when prices fall off by 10 percent, and that now is the time to buy. Others are more pessimistic, and call it "technically a bear market."
Among major indexes, the Dow, the S&P and the Nasdaq all dropped more than 2 percent yesterday, in addition to the trimming they have taken so far this year. And the price of crude oil dripped below $30 a barrel, compared to more than $100 barely two years ago.
On top of that, the Federal Reserve pointed to a drop in industrial production in December for the third consecutive month. Retail sales in America have also fallen.
Meanwhile, what will the presidential candidates have to say? Will the Republicans put all the blame on the incumbent Democrat, Barack Obama, and will they promise happy days for all if voters trust in them, regardless of the consistent growth of the past seven years?
And will Democratic candidates stress optimism about how things really are, notwithstanding negative numbers of recent days? Will they urge a longer view, that past crashes happened during Republican administrations, and that the U.S. economy is fundamentally sound, and able to withstand global drag-down pressures?
We live in interesting times.
Financial advisors are fond of warning against trying to time the market, because predicting human behavior is always risky.
Nonetheless, whether stock prices continue to fall into a bear market slumber or recover quickly from its correction cat nap is open to debate. And yes, while cynicism is endemic among journalists and anathema to speculators, it remains true that stock market indexes on Wall Street stumbled again Friday as investors paid increasing attention to economic conditions in the rest of the world.
Will the market crash as it did in 1929, 2000 and 2008? There are some who have already started to cry wolf. Fortune.com is quoting Albert Edwards of Societe Generale as predicting a Wall Street plunge of as much as 75 percent. USA Today noted that the stock market has drained $1.5 trillion in value just in the past two weeks.
Some call it only a "correction," which is when prices fall off by 10 percent, and that now is the time to buy. Others are more pessimistic, and call it "technically a bear market."
Among major indexes, the Dow, the S&P and the Nasdaq all dropped more than 2 percent yesterday, in addition to the trimming they have taken so far this year. And the price of crude oil dripped below $30 a barrel, compared to more than $100 barely two years ago.
On top of that, the Federal Reserve pointed to a drop in industrial production in December for the third consecutive month. Retail sales in America have also fallen.
Meanwhile, what will the presidential candidates have to say? Will the Republicans put all the blame on the incumbent Democrat, Barack Obama, and will they promise happy days for all if voters trust in them, regardless of the consistent growth of the past seven years?
And will Democratic candidates stress optimism about how things really are, notwithstanding negative numbers of recent days? Will they urge a longer view, that past crashes happened during Republican administrations, and that the U.S. economy is fundamentally sound, and able to withstand global drag-down pressures?
We live in interesting times.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Domino Nations
The U.S. may be the strongest economy in the world, but whether it's strong enough to keep the rest of the world from tumbling into metaphorical oblivion remains an open question.
Despite positive signs showing up in statistics gathered by the Federal Reserve Bank, forecasts of continuing economic growth are cloudy, and this lack of certainty is veiled in the sometimes foggy phrasing of the experts.
Time was, Wall Street was called a barometer of the economic health of America. That time, if it ever was, has passed. Even Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, warned of "irrational exuberance" among investors. And fear has at least as strong an influence on investor decisions as exuberance.
This week, stock market indexes have behaved like a yo-yo, falling and rebounding in rapid alternations as reports come in from other major nations as their economies slide and flirt with recession.
So a blizzard of statistics from around the world may well cause an avalanche, taking down and burying all before it, no matter how strong an individual economy may be.
As it stands, a statistical "correction," in Wall Street parlance, has taken the Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocks down 10 percent from its last high mark. And investors are becoming more aware of weaknesses in major economies around the world, including China and among members of the European Union.
President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address to Congress, maintained that the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world, and anyone who claims it's in decline "is peddling fiction."
The American economy may be healthy now, and continues to recover slowly from the Great Recession, but general weakness or even a major collapse at one or more national economies in the world could well take down the U.S. economy as well.
And isolationism won't help. That was tried before, as the Great Depression began its tumble in 1929. No Great Tariff Wall is big enough to stop another worldwide avalanche.
Despite positive signs showing up in statistics gathered by the Federal Reserve Bank, forecasts of continuing economic growth are cloudy, and this lack of certainty is veiled in the sometimes foggy phrasing of the experts.
Time was, Wall Street was called a barometer of the economic health of America. That time, if it ever was, has passed. Even Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, warned of "irrational exuberance" among investors. And fear has at least as strong an influence on investor decisions as exuberance.
This week, stock market indexes have behaved like a yo-yo, falling and rebounding in rapid alternations as reports come in from other major nations as their economies slide and flirt with recession.
So a blizzard of statistics from around the world may well cause an avalanche, taking down and burying all before it, no matter how strong an individual economy may be.
As it stands, a statistical "correction," in Wall Street parlance, has taken the Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocks down 10 percent from its last high mark. And investors are becoming more aware of weaknesses in major economies around the world, including China and among members of the European Union.
President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address to Congress, maintained that the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world, and anyone who claims it's in decline "is peddling fiction."
The American economy may be healthy now, and continues to recover slowly from the Great Recession, but general weakness or even a major collapse at one or more national economies in the world could well take down the U.S. economy as well.
And isolationism won't help. That was tried before, as the Great Depression began its tumble in 1929. No Great Tariff Wall is big enough to stop another worldwide avalanche.
Truthers and Politicians
Here's something from the archives, posted in September 2012. Then apply it to the current candidates.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- H.L. Mencken
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." -- Aide to Mitt Romney
When it comes to bending or deliberately ignoring facts to conform to the message du jour, political campaigners win hands down. That's no surprise.
As a young reporter once said to the Samurai Rim Man, "Did you ever get the feeling when you're working on a story that someone's lying to you?"
Response: "Of course. It happens all the time. But it's not our job to say which side is lying. Sometimes they both are. Our job is to report accurately what each side says, and provide enough background information so the reader can decide which one is lying."
This year, however, the level of prevarication has reached a new high/low (pick one), and "blatant" only begins to describe the problem.
But here's a larger question: Is it that the candidates and their staffs are avoiding facts and flat-out lying, or is it that they are so ignorant of basic truths that they think noise and bluster will enable them to bully their way to victory?
Three qualities have been strongly evident among candidates in recent years. They are: Attractive, aggressive, and ignorant. The first two help to prove Dinty Ramble's observation of many years standing: Shake enough hands with enough people long enough and anybody can get elected to anything.
As for the third, consider this. Attractive and aggressive may win elections, but ignorance devastates a nation.
So what else is new for the 2016 campaign?
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- H.L. Mencken
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." -- Aide to Mitt Romney
When it comes to bending or deliberately ignoring facts to conform to the message du jour, political campaigners win hands down. That's no surprise.
As a young reporter once said to the Samurai Rim Man, "Did you ever get the feeling when you're working on a story that someone's lying to you?"
Response: "Of course. It happens all the time. But it's not our job to say which side is lying. Sometimes they both are. Our job is to report accurately what each side says, and provide enough background information so the reader can decide which one is lying."
This year, however, the level of prevarication has reached a new high/low (pick one), and "blatant" only begins to describe the problem.
But here's a larger question: Is it that the candidates and their staffs are avoiding facts and flat-out lying, or is it that they are so ignorant of basic truths that they think noise and bluster will enable them to bully their way to victory?
Three qualities have been strongly evident among candidates in recent years. They are: Attractive, aggressive, and ignorant. The first two help to prove Dinty Ramble's observation of many years standing: Shake enough hands with enough people long enough and anybody can get elected to anything.
As for the third, consider this. Attractive and aggressive may win elections, but ignorance devastates a nation.
So what else is new for the 2016 campaign?
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Socialist America
The term "socialist" again faces a campaign to portray it with the same negativity that it had more than 50 years ago during the Red Scare era that pitted American values against the dictatorship of the Soviet Union. And even earlier, before World War Two, those opposed to the abuses that corporate capitalism foisted on workers seeking better wages and conditions, were castigated as "socialists."
But the reality is that America has in place a wealth of social welfare programs, beginning with the introduction of Social Security and unemployment insurance in the 1930s, protection for workers seeking to organize labor unions, then right-to-work laws, along with Medicare and Medicaid, plus federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, all of which, as well as others, set up to protect consumers.
Nonetheless, political campaigners and fear mongers are emphasizing negativity as they remind voters that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Senator Sanders himself has long used the term as he worked the halls of Congress to push programs to benefit all of society, not just the wealthiest of the wealthy, who don't need help.
Republican spokesmen have been selective in their attacks on the Democratic administration of the past seven years, emphasizing the negative without an overall perspective. Example: Former GOP Chairman Haley Barbour said to Chris Matthews on MSNBC Wednesday evening that the American economy has had "the slowest recovery since World War Two" in the past seven years since Democrat Barack Obama has been President, and that "median household income is down."
Both claims are true, but Barbour ignores the reality that Obama took office during the Great Recession, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the early 1930s, both of which began during Republican domination in Washington. And as for median household income being down, this also is true, but it ignores the reality that income for wealthiest 1 percent, income has steadily risen.
So that seems to be the strategy for Republicans this election year: Play up the negative, ignore the positive, and repeat the myth that socialism is inherently evil. There were and are dictatorships in Eastern Europe and other countries masquerading as socialist democracies, but the reality is they are neither. At the same time, full social welfare programs are common in other democracies, such as Great Britain, France, Germany and Canada, and they work well -- far better than similar programs in the U.S.
Attacks on "the evils of socialism" are flimsy covers for the real goal -- to eliminate government sponsored programs that help those in need, and replace them with nothing, leaving the conservative elite in full control of everything.
Or as George F. Baer, president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, put it in 1901, "The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for -- not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the country."
Contrast that with the phrase in the U.S. Constitution that says, "All men are created equal," with the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Unless some are more equal than others, as George Orwell put it in his book, "Animal Farm." It follows, then, that those who are not "Christian men of property," as Baer claimed, should keep quiet, know their place and do as they're told by their betters.
Fat chance.
But the reality is that America has in place a wealth of social welfare programs, beginning with the introduction of Social Security and unemployment insurance in the 1930s, protection for workers seeking to organize labor unions, then right-to-work laws, along with Medicare and Medicaid, plus federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, all of which, as well as others, set up to protect consumers.
Nonetheless, political campaigners and fear mongers are emphasizing negativity as they remind voters that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Senator Sanders himself has long used the term as he worked the halls of Congress to push programs to benefit all of society, not just the wealthiest of the wealthy, who don't need help.
Republican spokesmen have been selective in their attacks on the Democratic administration of the past seven years, emphasizing the negative without an overall perspective. Example: Former GOP Chairman Haley Barbour said to Chris Matthews on MSNBC Wednesday evening that the American economy has had "the slowest recovery since World War Two" in the past seven years since Democrat Barack Obama has been President, and that "median household income is down."
Both claims are true, but Barbour ignores the reality that Obama took office during the Great Recession, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the early 1930s, both of which began during Republican domination in Washington. And as for median household income being down, this also is true, but it ignores the reality that income for wealthiest 1 percent, income has steadily risen.
So that seems to be the strategy for Republicans this election year: Play up the negative, ignore the positive, and repeat the myth that socialism is inherently evil. There were and are dictatorships in Eastern Europe and other countries masquerading as socialist democracies, but the reality is they are neither. At the same time, full social welfare programs are common in other democracies, such as Great Britain, France, Germany and Canada, and they work well -- far better than similar programs in the U.S.
Attacks on "the evils of socialism" are flimsy covers for the real goal -- to eliminate government sponsored programs that help those in need, and replace them with nothing, leaving the conservative elite in full control of everything.
Or as George F. Baer, president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, put it in 1901, "The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for -- not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the country."
Contrast that with the phrase in the U.S. Constitution that says, "All men are created equal," with the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Unless some are more equal than others, as George Orwell put it in his book, "Animal Farm." It follows, then, that those who are not "Christian men of property," as Baer claimed, should keep quiet, know their place and do as they're told by their betters.
Fat chance.
Beige Coloring Book
The Federal Reserve Board once again has colored the economic picture in America as expanding, or mostly positive.
But a bit further down in the central bank's quarterly report on the economy is the news that "most manufacturing sectors displayed a weakening," with agricultural sectors "weakened overall and farm incomes were stressed." In addition, "most segments of the energy sector struggled further, as oil and gas prices continued to decline." That may be trouble for corporate profits, but consumers benefit.
On the other side of the economic coin, are the realities that unemployment is down, at 5 percent, more than a quarter million workers were hired in December, and as President Barack Obama noted in his State of the Union message Tuesday evening, that jobless rate is now half what it was. Moreover, the government's budget deficit has been cut by three-quarters over the past seven years.
"Anyone who claims the economy is in decline is peddling fiction," Obama said.
That said, there is still work to be done, especially as many trends have squeezed workers' wages and consumer affordability. But cutting taxes for the 1 percent while not boosting pay packets for the lowest 30 percent, are not road signs that point to general welfare for all.
But a bit further down in the central bank's quarterly report on the economy is the news that "most manufacturing sectors displayed a weakening," with agricultural sectors "weakened overall and farm incomes were stressed." In addition, "most segments of the energy sector struggled further, as oil and gas prices continued to decline." That may be trouble for corporate profits, but consumers benefit.
On the other side of the economic coin, are the realities that unemployment is down, at 5 percent, more than a quarter million workers were hired in December, and as President Barack Obama noted in his State of the Union message Tuesday evening, that jobless rate is now half what it was. Moreover, the government's budget deficit has been cut by three-quarters over the past seven years.
"Anyone who claims the economy is in decline is peddling fiction," Obama said.
That said, there is still work to be done, especially as many trends have squeezed workers' wages and consumer affordability. But cutting taxes for the 1 percent while not boosting pay packets for the lowest 30 percent, are not road signs that point to general welfare for all.
Baseball Economics
"Say it ain't so, Joe!" said the young baseball fan to Shoeless Joe Jackson as the player was busted for throwing the World Series.
If economists were as nimble communicating statistics as baseball writers, more people would understand and care. As it is, sports writers have mastered the art of making data attractive and interesting. In short, they make people care.
Meanwhile, many baseball fans care as much about economics as economists care about baseball. It need not be that way.
The secret of good writing lies in knowing what to leave out. It's easy enough to pack everything in, but you risk losing the attention of readers and listeners. Rattling away with a parade of numbers is a temptation that many economists, teachers and writers cannot resist.
And while that may stroke their egos as they prattle on in great detail to students, readers and listeners, the result is BORING!
Good teachers recognize MEGO (my eyes glaze over) when they see it. Writers, however, don't have that opportunity, so they must plan in advance how to avoid the MEGO phenomenon.
Inflicting number numbness is no way to win a ball game. Or attract and keep a reader's attention.
If economists were as nimble communicating statistics as baseball writers, more people would understand and care. As it is, sports writers have mastered the art of making data attractive and interesting. In short, they make people care.
Meanwhile, many baseball fans care as much about economics as economists care about baseball. It need not be that way.
The secret of good writing lies in knowing what to leave out. It's easy enough to pack everything in, but you risk losing the attention of readers and listeners. Rattling away with a parade of numbers is a temptation that many economists, teachers and writers cannot resist.
And while that may stroke their egos as they prattle on in great detail to students, readers and listeners, the result is BORING!
Good teachers recognize MEGO (my eyes glaze over) when they see it. Writers, however, don't have that opportunity, so they must plan in advance how to avoid the MEGO phenomenon.
Inflicting number numbness is no way to win a ball game. Or attract and keep a reader's attention.
Media vs Money
The fastest way to get your name in print is to try to keep it out.
Five years ago, The New Yorker magazine published a 10,000-word article on the Koch brothers and their efforts to push America to the arms of the Radical Righteous. In response, the ultra-conservative industrialists sicced a private investigator on the writer.
Not a good idea.
This only piqued the curiosity of the writer, who then spent several years digging even deeper into the Koch brothers political machinations. Result: A book-length account of their efforts to demolish any and all government social and regulatory programs and agencies, including Social Security and Medicare, the Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and several others. In addition, they would sharply cut taxes in order to benefit their corporate bottom line.
The book, "Dark Money," by Jane Mayer, was published this week, and brought news articles and book reviews about the brothers and their history, which included forming the John Birch Society.
Want more? Here's a link to the New York Times book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/books/review-jane-mayers-dark-money-about-the-koch-brothers-fortune-and-influence.html?_r=0.
The lesson here is that a free and independent press is vital to ensuring a stable society that protects and serves all citizens, not just those with money and power.
Five years ago, The New Yorker magazine published a 10,000-word article on the Koch brothers and their efforts to push America to the arms of the Radical Righteous. In response, the ultra-conservative industrialists sicced a private investigator on the writer.
Not a good idea.
This only piqued the curiosity of the writer, who then spent several years digging even deeper into the Koch brothers political machinations. Result: A book-length account of their efforts to demolish any and all government social and regulatory programs and agencies, including Social Security and Medicare, the Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and several others. In addition, they would sharply cut taxes in order to benefit their corporate bottom line.
The book, "Dark Money," by Jane Mayer, was published this week, and brought news articles and book reviews about the brothers and their history, which included forming the John Birch Society.
Want more? Here's a link to the New York Times book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/books/review-jane-mayers-dark-money-about-the-koch-brothers-fortune-and-influence.html?_r=0.
The lesson here is that a free and independent press is vital to ensuring a stable society that protects and serves all citizens, not just those with money and power.
Monday, January 11, 2016
News Judgment and Bias
Gossip is what people want to know.
News is what they need to know.
There is often a thin line between news and gossip. Information that is crucial to one person is irrelevant, useless or boring to another. So the question become this: Who decides which story goes into the newspaper, or on a news broadcast? Along with that, who decides how much space or time does it get, and where is it placed? Does it get 20 inches of type, beginning on the top of Page One? Or does it get two paragraphs on Page 17?
Answer to all those questions: The editor. It's called news judgment, and a good editor knows the information preferences of readers, whether for a local weekly or a national daily.
Does that mean editors and reporters are biased? Part of that depends on how one defines bias. A textbook for Journalism 101 will ask reporters how they would handle any given story. That is, what is the angle or slant of the opening paragraphs? (Anyone familiar with sewing and tailoring will recognize the term "cut on the bias," which means the angle of the cut.)
At the same time, the word "bias" has acquired a negative connotation, in that it can mean prejudiced.
Certain political candidates these days are fond of calling any journalist who poses a tough question "biased." And some go further, denigrating as incompetent, lousy, or otherwise a poor example of journalism, any newspaper that disagrees with their positions or has the temerity to endorse another candidate.
Unless the news outlet prints or publishes a full, complete and accurate account of what is said or done, reporters and editors face accusations of "bias." But what constitutes full and complete? How much of any given news event or speech should be printed or broadcast? Does the story deserve two paragraphs on Page 17 or 20 paragraphs beginning on Page One? Not every word of every speech is worth repeating.
Some insist that a story favorable to them should get a Page One banner headline, and anything negative or even remotely neutral should not appear at all.
That's not news judgment. That's propaganda. Those who want propaganda can print their own leaflets, or pay for advertising space. That's called marketing.
Otherwise, there's a wall between the news department and the advertising sales department.
The only opinions reporters and editors should have are what constitutes a good story. And good stories don't always match a candidate's preferred message.
News is what they need to know.
There is often a thin line between news and gossip. Information that is crucial to one person is irrelevant, useless or boring to another. So the question become this: Who decides which story goes into the newspaper, or on a news broadcast? Along with that, who decides how much space or time does it get, and where is it placed? Does it get 20 inches of type, beginning on the top of Page One? Or does it get two paragraphs on Page 17?
Answer to all those questions: The editor. It's called news judgment, and a good editor knows the information preferences of readers, whether for a local weekly or a national daily.
Does that mean editors and reporters are biased? Part of that depends on how one defines bias. A textbook for Journalism 101 will ask reporters how they would handle any given story. That is, what is the angle or slant of the opening paragraphs? (Anyone familiar with sewing and tailoring will recognize the term "cut on the bias," which means the angle of the cut.)
At the same time, the word "bias" has acquired a negative connotation, in that it can mean prejudiced.
Certain political candidates these days are fond of calling any journalist who poses a tough question "biased." And some go further, denigrating as incompetent, lousy, or otherwise a poor example of journalism, any newspaper that disagrees with their positions or has the temerity to endorse another candidate.
Unless the news outlet prints or publishes a full, complete and accurate account of what is said or done, reporters and editors face accusations of "bias." But what constitutes full and complete? How much of any given news event or speech should be printed or broadcast? Does the story deserve two paragraphs on Page 17 or 20 paragraphs beginning on Page One? Not every word of every speech is worth repeating.
Some insist that a story favorable to them should get a Page One banner headline, and anything negative or even remotely neutral should not appear at all.
That's not news judgment. That's propaganda. Those who want propaganda can print their own leaflets, or pay for advertising space. That's called marketing.
Otherwise, there's a wall between the news department and the advertising sales department.
The only opinions reporters and editors should have are what constitutes a good story. And good stories don't always match a candidate's preferred message.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Political Prattle
Dance around the question and avoid specifics.
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
"In your heart, you know he's right." -- Campaign slogan for Barry Goldwater in 1964. He lost.
"My mouth got ahead of my brain." -- Maine Gov. Paul LePage, in trying to back away from his comment that out-of-state drug dealers impregnate "young white" women.
The American political system too often comes up with leaders the country deserves, not the kind it needs.
Hearing the same prattle every day can give a conscientious voter an ache. Unfortunately, not all voters are conscientious, and some are not even conscious. Or they are unable to tune out the Daily Prattle. Many are working, so they don't have the opportunity. Others are looking for work, so they don't have the time or motivation.
Then there are the rare few who are conscientious about their civic duty, conscious of the potential repercussions of a particular candidate's victory, and willing to listen to the speechifying so they can separate the kernels of wisdom from the nuts in the shell game. Moreover, they take the time and the effort to try.
Currently, however, the battle for the GOP presidential nomination in the U.S. features only the entertainment, and ignores the educational.
The good news is that we are some six months away from the nominating conventions, and a full ten months away from Election Day. A lot can happen in that time, including the chances that someone who wins the Iowa caucus next month and/or the New Hampshire primary election shortly after that may be well forgotten come convention time in the summer.
The bad news is that the candidate with the most entertaining act, combined with the ability to appeal to the most disgruntled of American voters, may succeed in getting citizens to listen to and believe the prattle of a demagogue.
Is this any way to run a country?
As noted in this space more than two years ago, "Reality, however, has seldom interfered with the preconceived notions of extremists, whether on the Right or the Left. Witness the House vote 40 times over to repeal the Affordable Care Act, knowing such an effort is futile. What's up with that?
"Compromise, though sometimes harmful, is what helped form America -- indeed, compromise is crucial to any democratic society -- and continuing compromise is what enables government to function. Without compromise, government ceases to function."
Now, because of an obdurate few, we have a dysfunctional electoral cycle, at least on one side.
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
"In your heart, you know he's right." -- Campaign slogan for Barry Goldwater in 1964. He lost.
"My mouth got ahead of my brain." -- Maine Gov. Paul LePage, in trying to back away from his comment that out-of-state drug dealers impregnate "young white" women.
The American political system too often comes up with leaders the country deserves, not the kind it needs.
Hearing the same prattle every day can give a conscientious voter an ache. Unfortunately, not all voters are conscientious, and some are not even conscious. Or they are unable to tune out the Daily Prattle. Many are working, so they don't have the opportunity. Others are looking for work, so they don't have the time or motivation.
Then there are the rare few who are conscientious about their civic duty, conscious of the potential repercussions of a particular candidate's victory, and willing to listen to the speechifying so they can separate the kernels of wisdom from the nuts in the shell game. Moreover, they take the time and the effort to try.
Currently, however, the battle for the GOP presidential nomination in the U.S. features only the entertainment, and ignores the educational.
The good news is that we are some six months away from the nominating conventions, and a full ten months away from Election Day. A lot can happen in that time, including the chances that someone who wins the Iowa caucus next month and/or the New Hampshire primary election shortly after that may be well forgotten come convention time in the summer.
The bad news is that the candidate with the most entertaining act, combined with the ability to appeal to the most disgruntled of American voters, may succeed in getting citizens to listen to and believe the prattle of a demagogue.
Is this any way to run a country?
As noted in this space more than two years ago, "Reality, however, has seldom interfered with the preconceived notions of extremists, whether on the Right or the Left. Witness the House vote 40 times over to repeal the Affordable Care Act, knowing such an effort is futile. What's up with that?
"Compromise, though sometimes harmful, is what helped form America -- indeed, compromise is crucial to any democratic society -- and continuing compromise is what enables government to function. Without compromise, government ceases to function."
Now, because of an obdurate few, we have a dysfunctional electoral cycle, at least on one side.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Toxic Trilogy
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." -- George Orwell, "Animal Farm."
Politics and religion don't mix, it has long been said. And when economic policy is added to the mix, the result can be toxic.
True Believers incite a major conflict when they insist their way is the best -- to them, the only -- way to salvation, whether that be economic, political or religious.
One wrinkle in that last concept, of course, is the matter of salvation itself, since belief in the need for salvation assumes there is something from which to be saved. In many spiritual traditions, salvation is not an issue, because members do not believe that people are inherently evil.
In addition, there are many traditions that, while strongly spiritual, do not speak of an afterlife even as they worship a deity. Moreover, some traditions emphasize moral behavior, which stresses relationships with other people, compared to religious institutions that emphasize a relationship with a deity. Then there is the atheistic tradition, which denies the existence of any deity, as well as the agnostic tradition, whose members say there is no way of knowing. Meanwhile, these same people may be quite moral, in that they do not lie, cheat, steal, kill or otherwise do harm to others.
So when the self-appointed guardians of the public morality combine their efforts with their self-proclaimed True Belief in a certain religious tradition and insist that it be joined to political correctness and then combine both with economic policy, that can only brew trouble for a society founded on a principle that all are created equal.
Politics and religion don't mix, it has long been said. And when economic policy is added to the mix, the result can be toxic.
True Believers incite a major conflict when they insist their way is the best -- to them, the only -- way to salvation, whether that be economic, political or religious.
One wrinkle in that last concept, of course, is the matter of salvation itself, since belief in the need for salvation assumes there is something from which to be saved. In many spiritual traditions, salvation is not an issue, because members do not believe that people are inherently evil.
In addition, there are many traditions that, while strongly spiritual, do not speak of an afterlife even as they worship a deity. Moreover, some traditions emphasize moral behavior, which stresses relationships with other people, compared to religious institutions that emphasize a relationship with a deity. Then there is the atheistic tradition, which denies the existence of any deity, as well as the agnostic tradition, whose members say there is no way of knowing. Meanwhile, these same people may be quite moral, in that they do not lie, cheat, steal, kill or otherwise do harm to others.
So when the self-appointed guardians of the public morality combine their efforts with their self-proclaimed True Belief in a certain religious tradition and insist that it be joined to political correctness and then combine both with economic policy, that can only brew trouble for a society founded on a principle that all are created equal.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Caution Signals
No man is an island.
Neither is a country.
As noted here last November 18, the U.S. economy is healthy, but faces pressure from other nations still struggling. Events of the past few days have borne out this caution.
In China, stock markets were shut down early for two consecutive days this week because of massive sell offs. That stumble rippled around the world, sending Wall Street indexes off a cliff.
And despite continuing job growth in America -- the Labor Department reported that last month, U.S. employers added more than a quarter million workers to their payrolls as the unemployment rate held steady at 5 percent -- investors seemed more worried about overseas problems than they were confident about American economic health.
Even last month, as the Federal Reserve Board juiced up a key interest rate, the nation's central bank cautioned that it would continue to keep a wary eye on international developments, and it expects that economic conditions will evolve only gradually. Therefore, interest rates will remain low. The Fed added this caution, that the "actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook."
Translation: Things may look OK now, but a financial storm overseas could well send the U.S. economic ship off its course to prosperity.
Neither is a country.
As noted here last November 18, the U.S. economy is healthy, but faces pressure from other nations still struggling. Events of the past few days have borne out this caution.
In China, stock markets were shut down early for two consecutive days this week because of massive sell offs. That stumble rippled around the world, sending Wall Street indexes off a cliff.
And despite continuing job growth in America -- the Labor Department reported that last month, U.S. employers added more than a quarter million workers to their payrolls as the unemployment rate held steady at 5 percent -- investors seemed more worried about overseas problems than they were confident about American economic health.
Even last month, as the Federal Reserve Board juiced up a key interest rate, the nation's central bank cautioned that it would continue to keep a wary eye on international developments, and it expects that economic conditions will evolve only gradually. Therefore, interest rates will remain low. The Fed added this caution, that the "actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook."
Translation: Things may look OK now, but a financial storm overseas could well send the U.S. economic ship off its course to prosperity.
Pronouncers
"Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? ... In America, they haven't spoken it for years." -- Henry Higgins in "My Fair Lady."
In the early days of radio, networks printed a pronunciation guide for their announcers, based on the most widely spoken dialect in America, known to linguists as the North Midland dialect, and to non-academics as Midwestern.
There were exceptions, of course, but most words listed in the guide used pronunciations favored by the dominant group of speakers with the highest social acceptability rating. That's a subjective judgment, and you can call it snobbery if you wish. If not, call it the most neutral dialect, the one least likely to be identified with a particular regional, social or ethnic group, and the one most likely to be easily understood by most people.
Soon, that mode of speaking became known as the Radio Dialect. Even today, most broadcast news folk use that dialect. The pronunciation guidebooks are long gone, and news announcers often read the copy cold. That is, without having read it over before going on the air.
How else to explain such recent pronunciations heard on network television as DEC-la-tory for de-CLAR-uh-tory (declaratory), where the stress is on the second syllable, not the first?
Or BRAH-va-doh for bra-VAH-doh (bravado), where the stress is moved forward to the first syllable? Or a-FLU-ent for AH-flu-ent (affluent; first syllable rhymes with cat)?
Either that -- reading the prepared copy cold -- or the TV speakers are not familiar with these words to begin with. True, they may have seen them in print, and they understand the meanings, but they have not heard them spoken.
Granted, spoken English has not matched the written system since the days of Geoffrey Chaucer and the Great Vowel Shift. (Don't ask. Consult your friendly neighborhood dialectology coach or phonetician.)
But there is a dialect that can be called Standard Spoken/Written English. And yes, it is subjective, but it enables speakers and writers to communicate, regardless of which of many dialects they may use in everyday exchanges with friends, family and neighbors. Otherwise, all would be chaos.
Moreover, here is a basic truth: Linguistically all dialects are equal. Each enables its speakers to communicate with each other easily. The only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is the prestige of its speakers.
And that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
In the early days of radio, networks printed a pronunciation guide for their announcers, based on the most widely spoken dialect in America, known to linguists as the North Midland dialect, and to non-academics as Midwestern.
There were exceptions, of course, but most words listed in the guide used pronunciations favored by the dominant group of speakers with the highest social acceptability rating. That's a subjective judgment, and you can call it snobbery if you wish. If not, call it the most neutral dialect, the one least likely to be identified with a particular regional, social or ethnic group, and the one most likely to be easily understood by most people.
Soon, that mode of speaking became known as the Radio Dialect. Even today, most broadcast news folk use that dialect. The pronunciation guidebooks are long gone, and news announcers often read the copy cold. That is, without having read it over before going on the air.
How else to explain such recent pronunciations heard on network television as DEC-la-tory for de-CLAR-uh-tory (declaratory), where the stress is on the second syllable, not the first?
Or BRAH-va-doh for bra-VAH-doh (bravado), where the stress is moved forward to the first syllable? Or a-FLU-ent for AH-flu-ent (affluent; first syllable rhymes with cat)?
Either that -- reading the prepared copy cold -- or the TV speakers are not familiar with these words to begin with. True, they may have seen them in print, and they understand the meanings, but they have not heard them spoken.
Granted, spoken English has not matched the written system since the days of Geoffrey Chaucer and the Great Vowel Shift. (Don't ask. Consult your friendly neighborhood dialectology coach or phonetician.)
But there is a dialect that can be called Standard Spoken/Written English. And yes, it is subjective, but it enables speakers and writers to communicate, regardless of which of many dialects they may use in everyday exchanges with friends, family and neighbors. Otherwise, all would be chaos.
Moreover, here is a basic truth: Linguistically all dialects are equal. Each enables its speakers to communicate with each other easily. The only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is the prestige of its speakers.
And that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Packing the Rally
Credit TV journalists for exposing the tactics of Trumpistas as they restricted access to a political rally only to supporters of Donald J. Trump.
Some 20,000 tickets were distributed for the rally, to be held in a theater in Burlington VT that has a capacity of only 1,400. That total of free tickets was reached on Wednesday evening, 24 hours before the scheduled rally time, but the Trump organization continued to distribute tickets, according to news anchors on the MSNBC network.
At the door Thursday evening, those who hoped to attend were specifically asked if they were Trump supporters. If they said no, they were turned away on the threat of being arrested for trespassing. Even those who said they were neutral, and only wanted to hear what the Republican candidate said, were refused entry unless they declared their support for Trump.
Nonetheless, some anti-Trump protesters did get into the theater, presumably by claiming they were supporters, and when they raised their voices to heckle the candidate, Trump ordered them thrown out.
"Get 'em out," he said from the podium, on camera as TV news networks carried the rally speech live Thursday evening. "Don't give him his coat," Trump added. "Confiscate his coat," he told his security staff as they ousted the protesters. "It's below zero outside, confiscate his coat," he repeated.
The city of Burlington has a population of 40,000. Burlington is the home town of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.
Why Trump chose Burlington as a rally site, the largest city in a strongly Democratic site, is an interesting question.
Consider this possibility: By packing the crowd with his own supporters, drawing them from many miles away, Trump could "prove" his popularity, showing that the crowd packing the rally was overwhelming in his favor. This, in turn, could be extended to "prove" his popularity on a wider scale.
At root, according to an ancient principle of basic logic, this is the fallacy of composition -- that what is true for one small part of something is true for the whole.
Credit goes to journalists for exposing this fallacy.
Some 20,000 tickets were distributed for the rally, to be held in a theater in Burlington VT that has a capacity of only 1,400. That total of free tickets was reached on Wednesday evening, 24 hours before the scheduled rally time, but the Trump organization continued to distribute tickets, according to news anchors on the MSNBC network.
At the door Thursday evening, those who hoped to attend were specifically asked if they were Trump supporters. If they said no, they were turned away on the threat of being arrested for trespassing. Even those who said they were neutral, and only wanted to hear what the Republican candidate said, were refused entry unless they declared their support for Trump.
Nonetheless, some anti-Trump protesters did get into the theater, presumably by claiming they were supporters, and when they raised their voices to heckle the candidate, Trump ordered them thrown out.
"Get 'em out," he said from the podium, on camera as TV news networks carried the rally speech live Thursday evening. "Don't give him his coat," Trump added. "Confiscate his coat," he told his security staff as they ousted the protesters. "It's below zero outside, confiscate his coat," he repeated.
The city of Burlington has a population of 40,000. Burlington is the home town of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.
Why Trump chose Burlington as a rally site, the largest city in a strongly Democratic site, is an interesting question.
Consider this possibility: By packing the crowd with his own supporters, drawing them from many miles away, Trump could "prove" his popularity, showing that the crowd packing the rally was overwhelming in his favor. This, in turn, could be extended to "prove" his popularity on a wider scale.
At root, according to an ancient principle of basic logic, this is the fallacy of composition -- that what is true for one small part of something is true for the whole.
Credit goes to journalists for exposing this fallacy.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
COLA Loses Its Fizz
The income gap is widening, with new research documenting how income for the ultra-rich 1 percent continues to rise even as income for those in the middle and below remains flat or, considering inflation, actually declines. This applies especially harshly to pensioners.
Yet, citing statistics, the government claims that the cost of living last year was flat, so there is no cost of living allowance (COLA) to justify an increase in Social Security retirement income this year.
The rationale was that the sharp drop in fuel prices, including gasoline, more than offset any increases in other cost of living, such as food, clothing and shelter. Therefore, the government said, no COLA would be needed. Pensioners who don't drive, of course, did not benefit from lower gasoline prices. Folks who depend on Social Security retirement income, however, do have to eat, pay rent and buy clothing. And while food, clothing and shelter are necessities, an automobile is not. A car, according to the data drones, is a luxury.
Officially, the Social Security Administration announced that because "there was no increase in the Consumer Price Index from the third quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of 2015," monthly benefits will not increase for 2016.
This, of course, did not consider increases in the Consumer Price Index for the final three months of 2015.
So while the rich get richer, thanks to the widening income gap, the rest of the population must cope with flat or declining income, even as the cost of living rises. Anyone who goes to a grocery store knows that. Nonetheless, the statistics of the past 12 months "prove" that the cost of living did not rise.
Here are some numbers, as reported in the New York Times on Monday, January 4: For those Americans in the top quarter of 1 percent of employed people, "their salaries rose 96 percent from 1981 to 2013, after taking account of inflation." And for top executives at companies with more than 10,000 employees, "overall pay jumped 140 percent versus a 5 percent drop for the typical employee."
The report quoted research by Nicholas A. Bloom, professor of economics at Stanford University, and four of his colleagues.
Separately, the Senior Citizens League, based in Washington, noted that the government has changed its COLA calculation method 18 times in the past 34 years. "Each time they've called it an improvement or a correction," the League said, "but each time the result was a lower COLA."
Moreover, the League said, Social Security recipients "have lost a staggering 22 percent of their buying power in the last 16 years."
The League is backing a petition drive to support legislation to reform the COLA calculation method as well as provide a $70 monthly increase in benefits.
The bill, which already has the support of 73 members of Congress, according to the Senior Citizens League, raise the income ceiling so wealthy individuals would pay more into the system. As things stand, employees stop paying into the Social Security retirement fund after their income reaches $118,500. However, half of all American workers earn half that amount -- less than $60,000 yearly -- while those in the rarefied quarter of 1 percent earn $640,000 annually. Yet their contributions to the Social Security fund stop at the $118,500 level.
Closing this "loophole," the League said, would put Social Security on a sound financial footing for the next 50 years, and prevent possible future benefit cuts. As it is, some analysts have said the Social Security fund would run out of money in about 20 years.
The bottom line is this: The wage and income gap must be closed, and one way to help do that is for Congress to authorize a one-time increase in benefits, and then reform the COLA calculation method.
So while it may be statistically true that the general, overall range of prices in America did not rise as of September of last year, they are rising now as the economy recovers and oil prices on the commodities market jump again in response to yet another Middle East crisis. In turn, this will lead to higher gasoline prices at the pump. And when the data drones take out volatile fuel and energy prices from last year's calculations, it's more than likely that the actual cost of living rose. Given events of the past few weeks, both in America and worldwide, those on fixed incomes till face an even harder struggle in 2016.
Given also that this is an election year, it behooves an alert politician to remember that pensioners vote, and they do so at higher rates than younger folk.
Yet, citing statistics, the government claims that the cost of living last year was flat, so there is no cost of living allowance (COLA) to justify an increase in Social Security retirement income this year.
The rationale was that the sharp drop in fuel prices, including gasoline, more than offset any increases in other cost of living, such as food, clothing and shelter. Therefore, the government said, no COLA would be needed. Pensioners who don't drive, of course, did not benefit from lower gasoline prices. Folks who depend on Social Security retirement income, however, do have to eat, pay rent and buy clothing. And while food, clothing and shelter are necessities, an automobile is not. A car, according to the data drones, is a luxury.
Officially, the Social Security Administration announced that because "there was no increase in the Consumer Price Index from the third quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of 2015," monthly benefits will not increase for 2016.
This, of course, did not consider increases in the Consumer Price Index for the final three months of 2015.
So while the rich get richer, thanks to the widening income gap, the rest of the population must cope with flat or declining income, even as the cost of living rises. Anyone who goes to a grocery store knows that. Nonetheless, the statistics of the past 12 months "prove" that the cost of living did not rise.
Here are some numbers, as reported in the New York Times on Monday, January 4: For those Americans in the top quarter of 1 percent of employed people, "their salaries rose 96 percent from 1981 to 2013, after taking account of inflation." And for top executives at companies with more than 10,000 employees, "overall pay jumped 140 percent versus a 5 percent drop for the typical employee."
The report quoted research by Nicholas A. Bloom, professor of economics at Stanford University, and four of his colleagues.
Separately, the Senior Citizens League, based in Washington, noted that the government has changed its COLA calculation method 18 times in the past 34 years. "Each time they've called it an improvement or a correction," the League said, "but each time the result was a lower COLA."
Moreover, the League said, Social Security recipients "have lost a staggering 22 percent of their buying power in the last 16 years."
The League is backing a petition drive to support legislation to reform the COLA calculation method as well as provide a $70 monthly increase in benefits.
The bill, which already has the support of 73 members of Congress, according to the Senior Citizens League, raise the income ceiling so wealthy individuals would pay more into the system. As things stand, employees stop paying into the Social Security retirement fund after their income reaches $118,500. However, half of all American workers earn half that amount -- less than $60,000 yearly -- while those in the rarefied quarter of 1 percent earn $640,000 annually. Yet their contributions to the Social Security fund stop at the $118,500 level.
Closing this "loophole," the League said, would put Social Security on a sound financial footing for the next 50 years, and prevent possible future benefit cuts. As it is, some analysts have said the Social Security fund would run out of money in about 20 years.
The bottom line is this: The wage and income gap must be closed, and one way to help do that is for Congress to authorize a one-time increase in benefits, and then reform the COLA calculation method.
So while it may be statistically true that the general, overall range of prices in America did not rise as of September of last year, they are rising now as the economy recovers and oil prices on the commodities market jump again in response to yet another Middle East crisis. In turn, this will lead to higher gasoline prices at the pump. And when the data drones take out volatile fuel and energy prices from last year's calculations, it's more than likely that the actual cost of living rose. Given events of the past few weeks, both in America and worldwide, those on fixed incomes till face an even harder struggle in 2016.
Given also that this is an election year, it behooves an alert politician to remember that pensioners vote, and they do so at higher rates than younger folk.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Brevity
In print journalism, readers have the option of going back and reading again anything that's not clear. However, writers should not make them. Moreover, broadcast writing doesn't have that option. You only get one chance to get the viewer's attention, and give the information in a quick, understandable fashion. There is no instant replay button with a TV newscast.
There's also a presentation style favored by corporate types, in which the writer or presenter should tell them what he or she is going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what he or she told them.
But there's a difference between a corporate presenter and a good journalist or teacher. Corporate types want the credit for having attended a presentation, without the bother of having to learn anything.
Our Dublin correspondent, a computer specialist, reported that he was asked to give a presentation on technical issues. Being an experienced teacher, he formulated some lecture notes, to be followed by class discussion and an assignment to build experience.
He was surprised at the corporate lack of understanding that a presentation is not the same as an educational experience.
It seems the participants expected a series of presentations without any work assignments.
News media don't have the time or space for the repetitious presentation format. A better style of writing (and teaching, for that matter) calls for brevity: Say what you have to say, be done with it and be quiet.
There's also a presentation style favored by corporate types, in which the writer or presenter should tell them what he or she is going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what he or she told them.
But there's a difference between a corporate presenter and a good journalist or teacher. Corporate types want the credit for having attended a presentation, without the bother of having to learn anything.
Our Dublin correspondent, a computer specialist, reported that he was asked to give a presentation on technical issues. Being an experienced teacher, he formulated some lecture notes, to be followed by class discussion and an assignment to build experience.
He was surprised at the corporate lack of understanding that a presentation is not the same as an educational experience.
It seems the participants expected a series of presentations without any work assignments.
News media don't have the time or space for the repetitious presentation format. A better style of writing (and teaching, for that matter) calls for brevity: Say what you have to say, be done with it and be quiet.
Economic Politics
"The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for -- not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the country." -- George F. Baer, president, Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, 1901.
"I give (money) to all the politicians. Then, when I need something, they're there for me." -- Donald J. Trump.
Ultraconservative politicians and corporate executives manipulate government policy for their own economic gain. If employers had been providing adequate wages and working conditions for their workers, activist labor unions may not have been needed.
As it was, underpaid and overworked laborers organized unions to force what was, to them, morally right. However, students of history know that the wealthy elite support political candidates who will, in turn, enact legislation that favors those same supporters.
Government spending does, in fact, provide economic benefits, and that's as it should be. But when those tax and spending policies favor a few at the expense of the many, that's a problem that affects the economic health of the entire nation.
As noted on this blog in May, 2013, members of the petulant class believe that their status alone, as part of the wealthy one percent, entitles them to special benefits and special treatment, and they are surprised and insulted when they don't get it.
Such an attitude was widespread in the 19th Century, when industrialists believed they knew what was right and appropriate, therefore workers in the so-called lower classes should behave themselves and do what they were told.
Sound familiar? That same 19th Century attitude is unfortunately still around today, with some political candidates displaying their feelings that they know what's good for the country and their corporations, and therefore is good for the country. That may be true as far as it goes, but it's doesn't go very far. Former General Motors Chairman Charles Wilson, to whom that hubristic quote is attributed, really said that the company was part of the whole, and that government policy decisions work both ways -- what's good for one is good for the other.
As it is, the self-appointed guardians of the public morals combine morality with economics and politics, and invoke a divinity to endorse their arguments. The possibility that the same deity they invoke for their own purposes may have equal feelings for all others doesn't seem to apply. To them, the wealthy are a better class of people because they are wealthy, and the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor, as if poverty is somehow a moral failing.
"I did it, so can you," they proclaim. As if Shaquille O'Neal could say a Munchkin would have identical success in professional basketball.
"I give (money) to all the politicians. Then, when I need something, they're there for me." -- Donald J. Trump.
Ultraconservative politicians and corporate executives manipulate government policy for their own economic gain. If employers had been providing adequate wages and working conditions for their workers, activist labor unions may not have been needed.
As it was, underpaid and overworked laborers organized unions to force what was, to them, morally right. However, students of history know that the wealthy elite support political candidates who will, in turn, enact legislation that favors those same supporters.
Government spending does, in fact, provide economic benefits, and that's as it should be. But when those tax and spending policies favor a few at the expense of the many, that's a problem that affects the economic health of the entire nation.
As noted on this blog in May, 2013, members of the petulant class believe that their status alone, as part of the wealthy one percent, entitles them to special benefits and special treatment, and they are surprised and insulted when they don't get it.
Such an attitude was widespread in the 19th Century, when industrialists believed they knew what was right and appropriate, therefore workers in the so-called lower classes should behave themselves and do what they were told.
Sound familiar? That same 19th Century attitude is unfortunately still around today, with some political candidates displaying their feelings that they know what's good for the country and their corporations, and therefore is good for the country. That may be true as far as it goes, but it's doesn't go very far. Former General Motors Chairman Charles Wilson, to whom that hubristic quote is attributed, really said that the company was part of the whole, and that government policy decisions work both ways -- what's good for one is good for the other.
As it is, the self-appointed guardians of the public morals combine morality with economics and politics, and invoke a divinity to endorse their arguments. The possibility that the same deity they invoke for their own purposes may have equal feelings for all others doesn't seem to apply. To them, the wealthy are a better class of people because they are wealthy, and the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor, as if poverty is somehow a moral failing.
"I did it, so can you," they proclaim. As if Shaquille O'Neal could say a Munchkin would have identical success in professional basketball.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
MEGO Economics
"If you can't explain it to a 12-year-old, you don't understand it yourself." -- Albert Einstein
MEGO -- My Eyes Glaze Over
Our Dublin correspondent asks, "If the 'experts' on economics have such divergent views, how is the average person supposed to understand? As for politicians understanding, there is little chance of that. Mass media editors are not going to cover a subject if the audience switch off when their eyes glaze over."
The MEGO phenomenon is certainly a problem when trying to explain a potentially complex issue, but it's a writer's task to phrase it in such a way as to make it understandable. Writing at the college graduate level is fine for academics who already understand the issue, but for a general interest newspaper, it's important to write at a level the reader can understand.
Even the most complex issue can be explained at a seventh-grade level. This is not to say that the general public is unintelligent. The trick is not to bore them, or to talk over their heads. When writing about economics, aim for folks who don't have degrees in economics, but need to know about the issue anyway.
President Harry Truman has been quoted as wishing for "a one-armed economist," since so many were in the habit of saying, "on the other hand ..." Others are fond of suggesting that if you ask two economists a question, you'll get at least three answers. As it is, an economist or a politician can point to any given data set and "prove" nearly anything. Or as Mark Twain said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." And Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist and Nobel Laureate, has admitted that as a certified academic, he is quite capable of being as obtuse as any other academic, but he chooses not to, especially for his syndicated newspaper columns.
When readers and viewers in the general public don't understand an economic issue, it's hardly their fault, even as the problems have an impact on daily life. In a way, says our Dublin correspondent, it's similar to quantum mechanics, where there are three states -- yes, no and maybe.
This may well be true, especially when dealing with a continuing phenomenon. To drop another metaphor, "you can't step into the same river twice." In economics as a part of daily living, everything is always changing, so when economists attempt a prediction, they preface their forecasts with the "ceteris paribus" assumption. That is, "other things equal." And that can be a heroic assumption, to suggest holding all other contributing factors the same, with no changes, and just change one element, then such-and-so will happen. The problem is that in the real world everything is always changing. Some things may change more slowly than others, so it is possible to make some predictions. At the same time, the unexpected can jump in and change things immediately. The metaphorical river may continue its flow for years, but an earthquake can change its direction in seconds.
The task for news writers, then, is to bring an important topic to the general reader in such a way that it is easily understandable, even at the risk of being overly simplistic. Good writers, however, can overcome that risk, by talking to their audience, not at them.
MEGO -- My Eyes Glaze Over
Our Dublin correspondent asks, "If the 'experts' on economics have such divergent views, how is the average person supposed to understand? As for politicians understanding, there is little chance of that. Mass media editors are not going to cover a subject if the audience switch off when their eyes glaze over."
The MEGO phenomenon is certainly a problem when trying to explain a potentially complex issue, but it's a writer's task to phrase it in such a way as to make it understandable. Writing at the college graduate level is fine for academics who already understand the issue, but for a general interest newspaper, it's important to write at a level the reader can understand.
Even the most complex issue can be explained at a seventh-grade level. This is not to say that the general public is unintelligent. The trick is not to bore them, or to talk over their heads. When writing about economics, aim for folks who don't have degrees in economics, but need to know about the issue anyway.
President Harry Truman has been quoted as wishing for "a one-armed economist," since so many were in the habit of saying, "on the other hand ..." Others are fond of suggesting that if you ask two economists a question, you'll get at least three answers. As it is, an economist or a politician can point to any given data set and "prove" nearly anything. Or as Mark Twain said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." And Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist and Nobel Laureate, has admitted that as a certified academic, he is quite capable of being as obtuse as any other academic, but he chooses not to, especially for his syndicated newspaper columns.
When readers and viewers in the general public don't understand an economic issue, it's hardly their fault, even as the problems have an impact on daily life. In a way, says our Dublin correspondent, it's similar to quantum mechanics, where there are three states -- yes, no and maybe.
This may well be true, especially when dealing with a continuing phenomenon. To drop another metaphor, "you can't step into the same river twice." In economics as a part of daily living, everything is always changing, so when economists attempt a prediction, they preface their forecasts with the "ceteris paribus" assumption. That is, "other things equal." And that can be a heroic assumption, to suggest holding all other contributing factors the same, with no changes, and just change one element, then such-and-so will happen. The problem is that in the real world everything is always changing. Some things may change more slowly than others, so it is possible to make some predictions. At the same time, the unexpected can jump in and change things immediately. The metaphorical river may continue its flow for years, but an earthquake can change its direction in seconds.
The task for news writers, then, is to bring an important topic to the general reader in such a way that it is easily understandable, even at the risk of being overly simplistic. Good writers, however, can overcome that risk, by talking to their audience, not at them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)