"Me go to store, get cookie." -- The Cookie Monster
In an effort to sound folksy and avoid sounding too formal, many TV news presenters reject the perpendicular pronoun "I" and use "me" or "myself" instead.
For example, consider the phrase, "Join (name) and myself for our next show."
Join myself? Sorry, can't happen. And just because the word is separated by two or three others does not make it OK to use. Or, in an effort to be what he hopes will be correct, the announcer will resort to the hypercorrect "Join (name) and I ... "
Join I? That's even worse. A split second worth of thought will tell you it should be "Join me."
Or we often hear sentences beginning with "Him and me ... " rather than "He and I ..."
One problem, of course, is overcorrecting, in a misguided effort to sound "better." Along with that is a corollary effort to sound less formal, since some time in the educational system that got the idea that using the perpendicular pronoun "I" makes one seem egotistical or even arrogant.
Such is not the case. Each pronoun is proper in its own way.
A grammarian will gladly drown you with technical terms such as nominative, objective, possessive and other ramifications of the so-called case system, notwithstanding the reality that except for a small set of pronouns, the case system no longer exists in the English language.
For the record, the case system is one in which a noun changes its form according to its function. It's still in use in German, Russian and other languages, but was dropped from English as the language evolved from a blending of Anglo-Saxon, Norman French and Celtic, with borrowings from many other languages.
In any case, there are standards of usage in contemporary American usage that call for word forms suitable for each situation. Print is one, broadcasting is another, and street corner repartee is yet another.
The mark of a competent speaker or writer is knowing when to use which. Or is it which to use when?
Whatever.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Wolf Pack Journalism
The Republican competition for the presidential nomination in America has become an embarrassment. Cartoonists are having a field day lampooning the contenders and headline writers for tabloid publications delight in distilling their latest exploits in silliness into juicy phrases.
For months, the candidates have been mouthing off at each other with insult, vilification and abuse rather than spend any appreciable time on issues. For months, journalists stood away on a hillside, watching and reporting as candidates in the herd maneuvered for the lead.
Now, as the most proficient of the insult brigade takes the lead, reporters, columnists and cartoonists have joined in chasing what has become an easy target for mockery.
But will it work?
Will all the needling sarcasm succeed in dumping one of the most outlandish, outrageous and absurd election episodes ever seen?
Stay tuned.
Now, the journalistic wolf pack has begun to howl as print and broadcast media join the chase, licking their chops for what they hope will be an easy target.
One wonders why they didn't launch their challenge earlier.
For months, the candidates have been mouthing off at each other with insult, vilification and abuse rather than spend any appreciable time on issues. For months, journalists stood away on a hillside, watching and reporting as candidates in the herd maneuvered for the lead.
Now, as the most proficient of the insult brigade takes the lead, reporters, columnists and cartoonists have joined in chasing what has become an easy target for mockery.
But will it work?
Will all the needling sarcasm succeed in dumping one of the most outlandish, outrageous and absurd election episodes ever seen?
Stay tuned.
Now, the journalistic wolf pack has begun to howl as print and broadcast media join the chase, licking their chops for what they hope will be an easy target.
One wonders why they didn't launch their challenge earlier.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Petulant Politics
The quickest way to get your name in the paper is to try to keep it out. -- Editor Pug Mahoney
"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry S. Truman
To suppress disagreement equals dictatorship.
Candidate Donald Trump has threatened to leave the Republican Party if its leaders don't treat him "fairly." He has called for weaker libel laws so he can more easily sue news outlets that publish critical accounts of him. He has disavowed any knowledge of David Duke, the former chief of the Ku Klux Klan who had high praise for the candidate. This even though there have been numerous published reports of his past contacts and comments about the KKK leader.
Selective memory is a useful strategy if and when it works. But when you're a public figure and your comments and actions are duly recorded and published, it quickly backfires. Reporters and editors have long memories, as well as extensive files in print and video about who and what they cover.
To deny having said or done things when there are volumes of historic records to the contrary shows either pettiness or incompetence.
The candidate has a long record of viciously attacking anyone who dares to disagree with him on anything, anywhere, any time, any how, and threatening to pick up his marbles and go home if he doesn't get his way in everything.
But this is America, where all are free to express opinions and disagree over policies and actions in government or anywhere else. To suppress disagreement equals dictatorship.
Moreover, libel laws are different when you choose to be a public figure. It's called the doctrine of fair comment. To say nasty things about your neighbor is one thing, and can bring a lawsuit for damaging someone's reputation. But for those in the public eye, such as a candidate for president, debate and disagreement are essential in a democracy.
And in case the candidate hasn't noticed, there is the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and a free press. Stifling comments just because you disagree with them doesn't work.
Moreover, it's one thing to file a lawsuit. It's quite another to win a judgement, and still another to collect any monetary punishment.
So if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Pick up your marbles (if you have any left) and go home, like the petulant schoolyard bully you have shown yourself to be since childhood.
"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry S. Truman
To suppress disagreement equals dictatorship.
Candidate Donald Trump has threatened to leave the Republican Party if its leaders don't treat him "fairly." He has called for weaker libel laws so he can more easily sue news outlets that publish critical accounts of him. He has disavowed any knowledge of David Duke, the former chief of the Ku Klux Klan who had high praise for the candidate. This even though there have been numerous published reports of his past contacts and comments about the KKK leader.
Selective memory is a useful strategy if and when it works. But when you're a public figure and your comments and actions are duly recorded and published, it quickly backfires. Reporters and editors have long memories, as well as extensive files in print and video about who and what they cover.
To deny having said or done things when there are volumes of historic records to the contrary shows either pettiness or incompetence.
The candidate has a long record of viciously attacking anyone who dares to disagree with him on anything, anywhere, any time, any how, and threatening to pick up his marbles and go home if he doesn't get his way in everything.
But this is America, where all are free to express opinions and disagree over policies and actions in government or anywhere else. To suppress disagreement equals dictatorship.
Moreover, libel laws are different when you choose to be a public figure. It's called the doctrine of fair comment. To say nasty things about your neighbor is one thing, and can bring a lawsuit for damaging someone's reputation. But for those in the public eye, such as a candidate for president, debate and disagreement are essential in a democracy.
And in case the candidate hasn't noticed, there is the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and a free press. Stifling comments just because you disagree with them doesn't work.
Moreover, it's one thing to file a lawsuit. It's quite another to win a judgement, and still another to collect any monetary punishment.
So if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Pick up your marbles (if you have any left) and go home, like the petulant schoolyard bully you have shown yourself to be since childhood.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
DT
It used to be called Delirium Tremens, a condition brought on by taking in Diverse Things that Delivered Toxic stuff to the brain.
For a time, little could be done but wait until what the victim thought was Divine Toxicity cleared up, the person sobered up and came to his senses.
Similar issues happen in business and politics. Owners of golf courses, real estate seminars, football leagues, hotels, casinos and airlines have conned people into investing big money in the projects, only to see them go bankrupt. They watch as their money Disappears, Transferred to the Developer Triumphant as he walks away from yet another Delirious Trap, his ego inflated and his wallet fattened Despite Terrible losses by the Duped Tyros.
Now we are engaged in a great election campaign, testing to see whether people will continue to believe the Dynamic Tirades of an incipient Deranged Tyrant and enable him to foment more Dirty Tricks on the Delirious Troops who choose to believe every word their leader utters, regardless of fact or reality.
In Due Time, we will see how much influence news media have as they spread information and fact to overcome the candidate's Doddering Tales of past successes that really weren't.
For a time, little could be done but wait until what the victim thought was Divine Toxicity cleared up, the person sobered up and came to his senses.
Similar issues happen in business and politics. Owners of golf courses, real estate seminars, football leagues, hotels, casinos and airlines have conned people into investing big money in the projects, only to see them go bankrupt. They watch as their money Disappears, Transferred to the Developer Triumphant as he walks away from yet another Delirious Trap, his ego inflated and his wallet fattened Despite Terrible losses by the Duped Tyros.
Now we are engaged in a great election campaign, testing to see whether people will continue to believe the Dynamic Tirades of an incipient Deranged Tyrant and enable him to foment more Dirty Tricks on the Delirious Troops who choose to believe every word their leader utters, regardless of fact or reality.
In Due Time, we will see how much influence news media have as they spread information and fact to overcome the candidate's Doddering Tales of past successes that really weren't.
Friday, February 26, 2016
The Bully Pulpit (Emphasis on Bull)
Time was, a standard caution to politicians and corporate types was, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."
Reason: Reporters and editors exercised what was known as news judgment to filter what public figures said, selecting, choosing and emphasizing what was newsworthy and what was not.
Unfortunately, that caution no longer has the clout it once had.
Today, candidates manipulate the media so that TV news channels carry their speeches live and in full, so the message goes direct to potential voters. In addition, candidates launch volumes of comments on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, which also go direct to the faithful. And news channels pick up and repeat these postings, so the master manipulator gets maximum exposure with minimum expense.
That way, even when traditional print media run stories that are counter to the tales of sound and fury told by a candidate, the media manipulator can dismiss the story as a dismal effort by "a failing newspaper."
That was Donald Trump's description of the New York Times, which has been running exposes of the candidate's more outlandish claims. And the outlander does this on his social media postings as well as at his campaign rallies -- which are dutifully carried and broadcast by the all-news TV channels.
However, newspapers and magazines retain some influence among those who read them and devote some think time to the information and the potential consequences of the positions -- if any -- taken by the candidates. And part of the function of the print media is to point out when candidates talk a lot but say little.
Today, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Trump's candidacy for President, and major news channels carried the announcement as well as a longer speech by Trump that followed the endorsement, live and in full, without comment or analysis, and without filtering out the dross and chaff.
Meanwhile, the tabloid New York Daily News ran a Page One headline "Trump For Prez," alongside a picture of a white-hooded Ku Klux Klansman, and attributing the endorsement to David Duke, a former chieftain of the KKK, and a quote: "He's just like us."
So while demagogues may appeal to the many, there remain many others who read and think over the consequences of electing someone of Trump's ilk.
Moreover, there is hope. While there is a possibility that Trump may actually win the Republican Party's nomination, he still faces a general election come next November, and would have to persuade many voters other than his devoted followers to nudge him into the Oval Office.
Once there, moreover, he would have to persuade a majority in Congress to actually consent to his proposals. And without that, little gets done.
This has happened before, currently with President Barack Obama. Whatever he proposes, the Republican-controlled Congress says no. In fact, the GOP has refused to even meet with or discuss any potential nominee for the current vacancy on the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, the upcoming general election could well bring a sea change in the makeup of Congress, with a majority of Democrats who would then block any proposals by a Republican president, especially if he should happen to be Donald Trump.
Or American voters could elect a Democrat to the Oval Office, as well as a solidly Democratic Congress. After all, the entire House of Representatives will be up for re-election this year, as well as one-third of the Senate.
Could it happen? Sure. Remember Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected President in 1932 and had the solid support of a Democratic Congress to approve his many plans to rescue the nation from the Great Depression?
So American voters have a clear choice: That of electing a demagogue with no experience in government and give him solid support of a like-minded Congress, or elect someone with long experience and qualifications and give that new President the support needed in a Congress dominated by members of the same party.
It's a bigger story than just the presidency.
Reason: Reporters and editors exercised what was known as news judgment to filter what public figures said, selecting, choosing and emphasizing what was newsworthy and what was not.
Unfortunately, that caution no longer has the clout it once had.
Today, candidates manipulate the media so that TV news channels carry their speeches live and in full, so the message goes direct to potential voters. In addition, candidates launch volumes of comments on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, which also go direct to the faithful. And news channels pick up and repeat these postings, so the master manipulator gets maximum exposure with minimum expense.
That way, even when traditional print media run stories that are counter to the tales of sound and fury told by a candidate, the media manipulator can dismiss the story as a dismal effort by "a failing newspaper."
That was Donald Trump's description of the New York Times, which has been running exposes of the candidate's more outlandish claims. And the outlander does this on his social media postings as well as at his campaign rallies -- which are dutifully carried and broadcast by the all-news TV channels.
However, newspapers and magazines retain some influence among those who read them and devote some think time to the information and the potential consequences of the positions -- if any -- taken by the candidates. And part of the function of the print media is to point out when candidates talk a lot but say little.
Today, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Trump's candidacy for President, and major news channels carried the announcement as well as a longer speech by Trump that followed the endorsement, live and in full, without comment or analysis, and without filtering out the dross and chaff.
Meanwhile, the tabloid New York Daily News ran a Page One headline "Trump For Prez," alongside a picture of a white-hooded Ku Klux Klansman, and attributing the endorsement to David Duke, a former chieftain of the KKK, and a quote: "He's just like us."
So while demagogues may appeal to the many, there remain many others who read and think over the consequences of electing someone of Trump's ilk.
Moreover, there is hope. While there is a possibility that Trump may actually win the Republican Party's nomination, he still faces a general election come next November, and would have to persuade many voters other than his devoted followers to nudge him into the Oval Office.
Once there, moreover, he would have to persuade a majority in Congress to actually consent to his proposals. And without that, little gets done.
This has happened before, currently with President Barack Obama. Whatever he proposes, the Republican-controlled Congress says no. In fact, the GOP has refused to even meet with or discuss any potential nominee for the current vacancy on the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, the upcoming general election could well bring a sea change in the makeup of Congress, with a majority of Democrats who would then block any proposals by a Republican president, especially if he should happen to be Donald Trump.
Or American voters could elect a Democrat to the Oval Office, as well as a solidly Democratic Congress. After all, the entire House of Representatives will be up for re-election this year, as well as one-third of the Senate.
Could it happen? Sure. Remember Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected President in 1932 and had the solid support of a Democratic Congress to approve his many plans to rescue the nation from the Great Depression?
So American voters have a clear choice: That of electing a demagogue with no experience in government and give him solid support of a like-minded Congress, or elect someone with long experience and qualifications and give that new President the support needed in a Congress dominated by members of the same party.
It's a bigger story than just the presidency.
Awful Event
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"Unfit ... unworthy ... appalling .. unpredictable ... terrifying ... He must be stopped."
These are a few of the words used by The Economist, one of the world's great news publications, as it opposed Donald Trump's campaign to become President of the United States (http://www.economist.com).
In its latest edition, editors of The Economist write that "it is difficult to imagine any candidate less suited to the consequence of winning a general election, namely governing."
This follows a Page One story in The New York Times of Friday Feb. 26 detailing the hiring practices of Mar-A-Lago, the Florida resort owned by Trump. It seems that the hotel resorts to hiring many foreign workers as it bypasses local job seekers. While it may be that some of the American applicants are unqualified, as Trump claims, the variance between the number of openings and the number of local workers hired compared to those supplied by overseas recruiters is noteworthy.
Expect Trump to dismiss these reports as trash perpetrated by publications that are losers, not worth the paper they're printed on, and (pick a derogatory term or three). But given the choice of believing any politician (especially an entertainer-turned-politician) or a well established news publication, we'll take the newspaper every time.
Meanwhile, government data released Friday indicate that the economy continues to grow and personal income of American workers continues to rise. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at an annualized rate of 1 percent in the fourth quarter, and both personal income and disposable personal income rose by 0.5 percent in January, according to government statistics.
Yet Republican candidates repeat their chant of impending disaster and the incompetence of current leaders. For those who have been paying attention since the end of the Great Recession seven years ago, the warnings of "economic doldrums and oppressive regulation" ring hollow.
And as noted by economist Robert Reich in his new book, "Saving Capitalism," "Few ideas have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a 'free market' into which government intrudes." On the contrary, Reich maintains, "There can be no 'free market' without government" because a civilized society needs rules, and it is government that generates rules.
"Market forces," on the other hand, only cause chaos and poverty, enriching the already rich and worsening the plight of all others.
In short, government is essential to keep a market, as well as customers and providers, free.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"Unfit ... unworthy ... appalling .. unpredictable ... terrifying ... He must be stopped."
These are a few of the words used by The Economist, one of the world's great news publications, as it opposed Donald Trump's campaign to become President of the United States (http://www.economist.com).
In its latest edition, editors of The Economist write that "it is difficult to imagine any candidate less suited to the consequence of winning a general election, namely governing."
This follows a Page One story in The New York Times of Friday Feb. 26 detailing the hiring practices of Mar-A-Lago, the Florida resort owned by Trump. It seems that the hotel resorts to hiring many foreign workers as it bypasses local job seekers. While it may be that some of the American applicants are unqualified, as Trump claims, the variance between the number of openings and the number of local workers hired compared to those supplied by overseas recruiters is noteworthy.
Expect Trump to dismiss these reports as trash perpetrated by publications that are losers, not worth the paper they're printed on, and (pick a derogatory term or three). But given the choice of believing any politician (especially an entertainer-turned-politician) or a well established news publication, we'll take the newspaper every time.
Meanwhile, government data released Friday indicate that the economy continues to grow and personal income of American workers continues to rise. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at an annualized rate of 1 percent in the fourth quarter, and both personal income and disposable personal income rose by 0.5 percent in January, according to government statistics.
Yet Republican candidates repeat their chant of impending disaster and the incompetence of current leaders. For those who have been paying attention since the end of the Great Recession seven years ago, the warnings of "economic doldrums and oppressive regulation" ring hollow.
And as noted by economist Robert Reich in his new book, "Saving Capitalism," "Few ideas have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a 'free market' into which government intrudes." On the contrary, Reich maintains, "There can be no 'free market' without government" because a civilized society needs rules, and it is government that generates rules.
"Market forces," on the other hand, only cause chaos and poverty, enriching the already rich and worsening the plight of all others.
In short, government is essential to keep a market, as well as customers and providers, free.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Job Exports
Political candidates, especially those from the conservative right wing, loudly lament the loss of "good American jobs" to overseas competitors.
A high irony is that the shift of well paying skilled manufacturing jobs to other countries was undertaken by the same conservative right wing corporate executives in search of higher profits who now criticize the transfer of manufacturing that they themselves initiated.
Perhaps they want these jobs brought back but at the same low wage scales that prevailed nearly 100 years ago.
One reality, however, is that many jobs cannot be exported. These include well paying skilled jobs like carpenters, plumbers, construction workers, auto mechanics and other trades that can only be done locally. Also retail sales, building maintenance and landscaping. Also transportation jobs like trucking, railroading, bus driving and airlines. Also higher skill jobs like science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Also teaching. Also hotel staff. Also jobs in journalism, ranging from reporting, writing and editing to advertising sales and support staff, to printers and press room personnel to delivery truck drivers and distribution workers to home delivery carriers. And that's just in the newspaper field. Add to that magazine and book publishers and editors. Let's not forget postal service workers, police, fire and security personnel and many government sector jobs.
Don't forget broadcasting and telecommunications, including radio, television, information technology and Internet support staff who feed media web sites.
The list goes on. Many jobs, then, cannot be exported.
Other jobs can, however, and many of those are indeed manufacturing jobs. But they are not all high skill, high wage jobs. In fact, they are the reverse, and American consumers benefit as the stuff made in other countries becomes available at lower retail cost.
Moreover, American success has contributed to this transfer of low wage, low skill jobs to other countries. As wages in America increased, firms looked to other regions where labor was abundant and wages were lower. Not only do American consumers benefit from lower prices at retail, but workers in other regions benefit by having jobs to support their families. And this ability to stay home keeps families together and reduces emigration.
There's nothing new about this pattern, even within America itself. In the 19th Century, New England was a leader in textile manufacturing. Cheap labor was available, and there were plenty of streams and rivers to power the mills. Later, as labor costs rose, owners moved their facilities to the Carolinas and converted the mills to engines powered by coal. This move brought them closer to the coal mines, as well as to the cotton growers, so transportation costs were cut. Meanwhile, mechanization also came to the farms, which left more workers available for the mills, and at lower wages than those in New England.
The loss of jobs in the North was as much due to advances in technology as it was to wages.
So it was also in the 20th Century. New York City saw the demise of its renowned Garment District in Manhattan, where generations of newcomers to America found steady work at good wages, a situation not available to them in their home countries. If it had been, they would not have left.
The Land of Opportunity enabled the children of these newcomers to become better education and to learn higher skills, so they moved on from the Garment District on the path to higher salaries.
Here it's good to remember that several of the current presidential candidates are themselves sons or grandsons of immigrants.
Meanwhile, American growth and success, coupled with abundant labor and lower wages in other countries, meant garment making left New York.
Variations on this set of circumstances, along with other contributing factors, benefited both the older regions of America that have outgrown manufacturing as well s the emerging economies that can supply garments and other products at lower cost even as it offers employment and prosperity to those in need.
All that said, however, there are still many jobs available in America for newcomers, often the low skill, minimum wage jobs that many Americans don't want. It is a hypocrisy to criticize the influx of workers taking jobs that the critics themselves refuse to fill, and give their children monetary allowances rather than see them work at these jobs.
So the campaign slogan that promises to "take back" jobs lost to other countries is based on a false premise, because the jobs that moved away were often low skill, low wage positions that Americans would not want even if they did come back. Which they won't.
A high irony is that the shift of well paying skilled manufacturing jobs to other countries was undertaken by the same conservative right wing corporate executives in search of higher profits who now criticize the transfer of manufacturing that they themselves initiated.
Perhaps they want these jobs brought back but at the same low wage scales that prevailed nearly 100 years ago.
One reality, however, is that many jobs cannot be exported. These include well paying skilled jobs like carpenters, plumbers, construction workers, auto mechanics and other trades that can only be done locally. Also retail sales, building maintenance and landscaping. Also transportation jobs like trucking, railroading, bus driving and airlines. Also higher skill jobs like science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Also teaching. Also hotel staff. Also jobs in journalism, ranging from reporting, writing and editing to advertising sales and support staff, to printers and press room personnel to delivery truck drivers and distribution workers to home delivery carriers. And that's just in the newspaper field. Add to that magazine and book publishers and editors. Let's not forget postal service workers, police, fire and security personnel and many government sector jobs.
Don't forget broadcasting and telecommunications, including radio, television, information technology and Internet support staff who feed media web sites.
The list goes on. Many jobs, then, cannot be exported.
Other jobs can, however, and many of those are indeed manufacturing jobs. But they are not all high skill, high wage jobs. In fact, they are the reverse, and American consumers benefit as the stuff made in other countries becomes available at lower retail cost.
Moreover, American success has contributed to this transfer of low wage, low skill jobs to other countries. As wages in America increased, firms looked to other regions where labor was abundant and wages were lower. Not only do American consumers benefit from lower prices at retail, but workers in other regions benefit by having jobs to support their families. And this ability to stay home keeps families together and reduces emigration.
There's nothing new about this pattern, even within America itself. In the 19th Century, New England was a leader in textile manufacturing. Cheap labor was available, and there were plenty of streams and rivers to power the mills. Later, as labor costs rose, owners moved their facilities to the Carolinas and converted the mills to engines powered by coal. This move brought them closer to the coal mines, as well as to the cotton growers, so transportation costs were cut. Meanwhile, mechanization also came to the farms, which left more workers available for the mills, and at lower wages than those in New England.
The loss of jobs in the North was as much due to advances in technology as it was to wages.
So it was also in the 20th Century. New York City saw the demise of its renowned Garment District in Manhattan, where generations of newcomers to America found steady work at good wages, a situation not available to them in their home countries. If it had been, they would not have left.
The Land of Opportunity enabled the children of these newcomers to become better education and to learn higher skills, so they moved on from the Garment District on the path to higher salaries.
Here it's good to remember that several of the current presidential candidates are themselves sons or grandsons of immigrants.
Meanwhile, American growth and success, coupled with abundant labor and lower wages in other countries, meant garment making left New York.
Variations on this set of circumstances, along with other contributing factors, benefited both the older regions of America that have outgrown manufacturing as well s the emerging economies that can supply garments and other products at lower cost even as it offers employment and prosperity to those in need.
All that said, however, there are still many jobs available in America for newcomers, often the low skill, minimum wage jobs that many Americans don't want. It is a hypocrisy to criticize the influx of workers taking jobs that the critics themselves refuse to fill, and give their children monetary allowances rather than see them work at these jobs.
So the campaign slogan that promises to "take back" jobs lost to other countries is based on a false premise, because the jobs that moved away were often low skill, low wage positions that Americans would not want even if they did come back. Which they won't.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Biting Apple
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
There is no security on the internet.
The FBI demands that technicians at Apple help the agency unlock data in an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists. Apple objects, claiming it would endanger the security features enjoyed by all iPhone owners.
No matter the seriousness of the crime or the likelihood of finding accessories on the email trail, Apple is not, nor should it be, an investigative arm of the FBI. The feds have plenty of skilled computer folk, so if they want to crack the security code used by the terrorists, they are free to try. It is true that Apple has built into its device security software, a program that automatically erases all data after a certain number of attempts to crack the code, and it would surely be easier for the FBI if their technicians had the help of the Apple folk who wrote the code.
That, however, is not the point. Apple is right to protest the attempt to invade its security programs, either by a "back door" or any other means. Doing so would set a precedent, and could easily lead to government using that "back door" to enter the data archives of any other Apple device owner.
Moreover, that precedent could be used in future efforts to have other firms assist law enforcement in its investigations. Thus, everyone is at risk of being monitored, ostensibly in the name of "national security."
Journalists have long refused to divulge sources to law enforcement for similar reasons, and many state laws protect that right. While there is no federal shield law protecting journalists, there should be, and many journalists have gone to jail rather than reveal their sources, even after government has already identified them. Whether corporations should also be compelled to assist in police investigations is now the key issue in the FBI-Apple dispute.
Government agents may have been encouraged in their efforts by a history of other communications companies providing records, such as telephone calls or emails, known as metadata. Even though wiretap laws were and are still in effect, that did stop companies from providing the data, on the excuse that content was not revealed, but only records of numbers contacted and time spent.
Computer and telecommunication companies try hard to provide security for device users through sophisticated encryption programs that protect them from scammers, invaders, data thieves and those who block all access unless a ransom is paid.
But to circumvent all that and cooperate with government investigators conflicts with a constitutional right to privacy.
Prosecutors "promise" that this would be for one time only, and would immediately be abandoned once the investigation is complete.
Yeah, right.
Once the government camel's nose is under the computer tent, it will be nearly impossible to remove the camel.
Ask the CIA to get its nose out.
There is no security on the internet.
The FBI demands that technicians at Apple help the agency unlock data in an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists. Apple objects, claiming it would endanger the security features enjoyed by all iPhone owners.
No matter the seriousness of the crime or the likelihood of finding accessories on the email trail, Apple is not, nor should it be, an investigative arm of the FBI. The feds have plenty of skilled computer folk, so if they want to crack the security code used by the terrorists, they are free to try. It is true that Apple has built into its device security software, a program that automatically erases all data after a certain number of attempts to crack the code, and it would surely be easier for the FBI if their technicians had the help of the Apple folk who wrote the code.
That, however, is not the point. Apple is right to protest the attempt to invade its security programs, either by a "back door" or any other means. Doing so would set a precedent, and could easily lead to government using that "back door" to enter the data archives of any other Apple device owner.
Moreover, that precedent could be used in future efforts to have other firms assist law enforcement in its investigations. Thus, everyone is at risk of being monitored, ostensibly in the name of "national security."
Journalists have long refused to divulge sources to law enforcement for similar reasons, and many state laws protect that right. While there is no federal shield law protecting journalists, there should be, and many journalists have gone to jail rather than reveal their sources, even after government has already identified them. Whether corporations should also be compelled to assist in police investigations is now the key issue in the FBI-Apple dispute.
Government agents may have been encouraged in their efforts by a history of other communications companies providing records, such as telephone calls or emails, known as metadata. Even though wiretap laws were and are still in effect, that did stop companies from providing the data, on the excuse that content was not revealed, but only records of numbers contacted and time spent.
Computer and telecommunication companies try hard to provide security for device users through sophisticated encryption programs that protect them from scammers, invaders, data thieves and those who block all access unless a ransom is paid.
But to circumvent all that and cooperate with government investigators conflicts with a constitutional right to privacy.
Prosecutors "promise" that this would be for one time only, and would immediately be abandoned once the investigation is complete.
Yeah, right.
Once the government camel's nose is under the computer tent, it will be nearly impossible to remove the camel.
Ask the CIA to get its nose out.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
TV Talk
In the early days of television when the flickering talk box was a default babysitter in many inner city neighborhoods, it was believed that children who spent hours listening to speech in the "standard" dialect would lose the accents they heard from their parents.
It didn't happen.
This was true not only of children in Harlem and Brooklyn, but also in other dialect regions throughout America, where the regional dialect or accent continues, no matter the social level. There's no mistaking the Texas accent of former President George W. Bush, for example, or the South Carolina speech of Sen. Lindsay Graham.
As for "uptalk," the style of speaking once popular among teenage girls that started in Southern California, that has largely disappeared. That style led to every sentence ending on a rising tone, making it sound like a question. More recently, it has been replaced by the use of the word "like" instead of the verb "said."
Speech changes. How, when and where can be documented and makes great fodder for academic studies and parlor games. Why do dialects change? That question makes for many hours of speculation, some of which may actually be valid.
One example of dialect variety can be found among the cities of the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. One reason why people of Boston speak differently from Philadelphians is likely because the Bostonian upper class sent their sons back to England for their education, while the families of Philadelphia, mostly Quaker, did not. This was because they would not have been welcome even if they had wanted to, which they did not.
Then, as Americans moved inland, away from the coastal areas and across the Appalachian Mountains, there was less contact with England, and regionalisms were lost as speech patterns consolidated among the various settlers. Meanwhile, the Appalachians were settled by many newcomers from Scotland and Northern Ireland, who brought their own cultural and language preferences, as well as their sense of individual independence and music. Moreover, these mountain folk maintain these traditions even today.
At the same time, the westward movement of the early Americans meant a broadening of dialectal coverage areas so that the so-called Midwestern accent, or North Midlands Dialect, extends from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Upper New York State to Ohio and Illinois all the way to California.
Even so, dialectal differences remain along the East Coast, even within the major cities, and many of these depend not only on geographical boundaries such as mountains, rivers and swamps, but also on social status.
For example, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a Democrat, still speaks with the Brooklyn accent of his youth, even though he has lived for many years in Vermont. And former Mayor John Lindsay's speech identified his background growing up in the Silk Stocking district of Manhattan.
In Jersey City, just across the Hudson River from Lower Manhattan and its heavy population of dockworkers, people speak with the same accent. But in nearby Newark, natives of that city have a different accent, since the Meadowlands swamp area between the two cities discouraged restricted travel and communication. That, of course, was long ago, but even though dockworkers have moved on and roads and bridges enable easy travel, the language differences remain.
Another dialect difference can be found among social classes, even within a city. This is found among Londoners with the Cockney accent, and those who are able to mingle with the monarch, speaking in what's called the "received pronunciation" or RP dialect.
In New York City, a linguistics researcher documented the speech of sales staff at department stores in Manhattan, and found that staffers at high-end stores spoke the same dialect as their customers, and those at bargain-basement retailers did the same, matching their dialect to that of lower-income customers.
All of which means that listening to the various dialects and matching them to different geographical areas and social levels is fun. However, it should in no way be judgmental.
It didn't happen.
This was true not only of children in Harlem and Brooklyn, but also in other dialect regions throughout America, where the regional dialect or accent continues, no matter the social level. There's no mistaking the Texas accent of former President George W. Bush, for example, or the South Carolina speech of Sen. Lindsay Graham.
As for "uptalk," the style of speaking once popular among teenage girls that started in Southern California, that has largely disappeared. That style led to every sentence ending on a rising tone, making it sound like a question. More recently, it has been replaced by the use of the word "like" instead of the verb "said."
Speech changes. How, when and where can be documented and makes great fodder for academic studies and parlor games. Why do dialects change? That question makes for many hours of speculation, some of which may actually be valid.
One example of dialect variety can be found among the cities of the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. One reason why people of Boston speak differently from Philadelphians is likely because the Bostonian upper class sent their sons back to England for their education, while the families of Philadelphia, mostly Quaker, did not. This was because they would not have been welcome even if they had wanted to, which they did not.
Then, as Americans moved inland, away from the coastal areas and across the Appalachian Mountains, there was less contact with England, and regionalisms were lost as speech patterns consolidated among the various settlers. Meanwhile, the Appalachians were settled by many newcomers from Scotland and Northern Ireland, who brought their own cultural and language preferences, as well as their sense of individual independence and music. Moreover, these mountain folk maintain these traditions even today.
At the same time, the westward movement of the early Americans meant a broadening of dialectal coverage areas so that the so-called Midwestern accent, or North Midlands Dialect, extends from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Upper New York State to Ohio and Illinois all the way to California.
Even so, dialectal differences remain along the East Coast, even within the major cities, and many of these depend not only on geographical boundaries such as mountains, rivers and swamps, but also on social status.
For example, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a Democrat, still speaks with the Brooklyn accent of his youth, even though he has lived for many years in Vermont. And former Mayor John Lindsay's speech identified his background growing up in the Silk Stocking district of Manhattan.
In Jersey City, just across the Hudson River from Lower Manhattan and its heavy population of dockworkers, people speak with the same accent. But in nearby Newark, natives of that city have a different accent, since the Meadowlands swamp area between the two cities discouraged restricted travel and communication. That, of course, was long ago, but even though dockworkers have moved on and roads and bridges enable easy travel, the language differences remain.
Another dialect difference can be found among social classes, even within a city. This is found among Londoners with the Cockney accent, and those who are able to mingle with the monarch, speaking in what's called the "received pronunciation" or RP dialect.
In New York City, a linguistics researcher documented the speech of sales staff at department stores in Manhattan, and found that staffers at high-end stores spoke the same dialect as their customers, and those at bargain-basement retailers did the same, matching their dialect to that of lower-income customers.
All of which means that listening to the various dialects and matching them to different geographical areas and social levels is fun. However, it should in no way be judgmental.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Dialect Dilemma
The study of linguistics focuses on how people use language. An editor looks for "correctness" while the linguist knows that patterns vary by region and social level. Age, too, for that matter.
So there is no such thing as a "correct" universal pronunciation, spelling or grammar, only that some dialects and pronunciations carry more prestige than others. But that is a social judgment. To a linguist, all dialects are equal. For editors and writers, it's important to write for the most clarity.
So which dialect is the right one? The one that's right for each individual and his or her social, cultural or political goals.
You learn your language from your parents, but your dialect from your peers, whomever you perceive them to be. Moreover, that dialect can change as you grow and mature, move to a different region or associate with a different group and want to identify with that group.
Some may adapt their dialect to that of a favorite teacher, coach, broadcaster or neighborhood friend.
The point is there are many dialects. The one you choose, even as it is subconscious, is the one you believe will help you most in getting along with others.
So there is no such thing as a "correct" universal pronunciation, spelling or grammar, only that some dialects and pronunciations carry more prestige than others. But that is a social judgment. To a linguist, all dialects are equal. For editors and writers, it's important to write for the most clarity.
So which dialect is the right one? The one that's right for each individual and his or her social, cultural or political goals.
You learn your language from your parents, but your dialect from your peers, whomever you perceive them to be. Moreover, that dialect can change as you grow and mature, move to a different region or associate with a different group and want to identify with that group.
Some may adapt their dialect to that of a favorite teacher, coach, broadcaster or neighborhood friend.
The point is there are many dialects. The one you choose, even as it is subconscious, is the one you believe will help you most in getting along with others.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Political Weathervane
Donald Trump is a weathervane, pointing to the political winds with the most bluster. The stronger the bluster, the higher he soars.
But the scary part of the showmanship is that millions support his notions, even when he goes to the extreme of calling Pope Francis a "disgrace" and a pawn of the Mexican government.
For those who believe in some of the basic tenets of Christianity, such as the duty to love and help neighbors, the Trumpster does not, as the Pope pointed out, have a very Christian attitude.
Instead, the candidate who hopes to become President of the United States revels in heaping abuse, insult and vilification on any who dare to disagree with him on anything, ever. And this attitude includes even Pope Francis, spiritual leading of many millions of people around the world.
While it may be true that a spiritual leader should not criticize another person's faith, as Trump insisted in his response to the Pope's remarks, this is also true for political leaders.
Perhaps religious leaders should refrain from getting involved in political affairs. This has been standard practice for Roman Catholic clergy for many decades. However, the political-religious divide, the separation of church and state, has not stopped many Protestant clergy from getting actively involved in politics, even to the extent of campaigning for and holding elective office.
For Trump to cast stones at the Pope for commenting on the candidate's attitudes on immigration belies Trump's own remarks over competitor Ben Carson's faith, claiming that "he doesn't even know what it means" to be a Seventh Day Adventist.
The Constitution specifies that "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States." And this includes the presidency. The historical background to this is that at the time the Constitution was written, candidates for Parliament and other political offices in England, as well as those who wanted to attend major colleges and universities there, had to be Anglicans, members of the Established Church of England.
Not too long ago, every member of the United States Supreme Court -- all nine -- were white male Protestants. Now, there are none.
One of the major reasons many Protestants and Catholics came to America was to have the freedom to practice their own faith in their own way, and not be forced to join some other religious organization in order to rise, educationally or politically.
Soon after American independence from England and the adoption of the Constitution, the First Amendment was attached, guaranteeing freedom of religion. Or freedom from religion.
Many of the founders subscribed to Deism, which is at root a belief in a Creator, but not that this Deity intervenes in human affairs.
Yet many of the current candidates regularly speak at length about their religious convictions, hoping this will impress voters enough to favor them.
In fact, it is not only unconstitutional, but also morally wrong to demand that a political leader in America hold a specified set of religious beliefs. At the same time, a political leader -- just as any citizen -- has a right to hold no religious belief at all.
But the scary part of the showmanship is that millions support his notions, even when he goes to the extreme of calling Pope Francis a "disgrace" and a pawn of the Mexican government.
For those who believe in some of the basic tenets of Christianity, such as the duty to love and help neighbors, the Trumpster does not, as the Pope pointed out, have a very Christian attitude.
Instead, the candidate who hopes to become President of the United States revels in heaping abuse, insult and vilification on any who dare to disagree with him on anything, ever. And this attitude includes even Pope Francis, spiritual leading of many millions of people around the world.
While it may be true that a spiritual leader should not criticize another person's faith, as Trump insisted in his response to the Pope's remarks, this is also true for political leaders.
Perhaps religious leaders should refrain from getting involved in political affairs. This has been standard practice for Roman Catholic clergy for many decades. However, the political-religious divide, the separation of church and state, has not stopped many Protestant clergy from getting actively involved in politics, even to the extent of campaigning for and holding elective office.
For Trump to cast stones at the Pope for commenting on the candidate's attitudes on immigration belies Trump's own remarks over competitor Ben Carson's faith, claiming that "he doesn't even know what it means" to be a Seventh Day Adventist.
The Constitution specifies that "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States." And this includes the presidency. The historical background to this is that at the time the Constitution was written, candidates for Parliament and other political offices in England, as well as those who wanted to attend major colleges and universities there, had to be Anglicans, members of the Established Church of England.
Not too long ago, every member of the United States Supreme Court -- all nine -- were white male Protestants. Now, there are none.
One of the major reasons many Protestants and Catholics came to America was to have the freedom to practice their own faith in their own way, and not be forced to join some other religious organization in order to rise, educationally or politically.
Soon after American independence from England and the adoption of the Constitution, the First Amendment was attached, guaranteeing freedom of religion. Or freedom from religion.
Many of the founders subscribed to Deism, which is at root a belief in a Creator, but not that this Deity intervenes in human affairs.
Yet many of the current candidates regularly speak at length about their religious convictions, hoping this will impress voters enough to favor them.
In fact, it is not only unconstitutional, but also morally wrong to demand that a political leader in America hold a specified set of religious beliefs. At the same time, a political leader -- just as any citizen -- has a right to hold no religious belief at all.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Hedging
The worldwide economic outlook and a slowdown in domestic growth led the Federal Reserve to hold off on its plan to raise interest rates in America, despite improved labor conditions and increased household and business spending.
In an unusually long statement released Wednesday on a January meeting of the Fed's Open Market Committee, the central bank said it would hold its key federal funds interest rate target range at 1/4 percent to 1/2 percent as it attempts to manage the nation's inflation rate to 2 percent or below.
In addition, the FOMC expects "only gradual increases" in the federal funds rate to match changes in economic conditions. That means the federal funds interest rate "is likely to remain, for some time, below" levels over a longer time.
As noted here last week, the U.S. economy, while reasonably healthy now, faces increasing drag from struggling economies around the world.
That's the crux of what Fed chair Janet Yellen told Congress, a sign that the Fed sees an approaching storm that could drag the American economy away from its path to full recovery.
With luck and careful monitoring, which the Fed promises to do, economic recovery in the U.S. will continue, albeit slowly even as other major nations continue to struggle.
Separately, a hedge fund based in London predicted that if the UK leaves the European Union, Ireland will be forced to leave also, because of the close economic ties between the two countries.
This prediction did not sit well with the Irish, on this 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising that brought independence after more than 400 years of domination by England.
In an unusually long statement released Wednesday on a January meeting of the Fed's Open Market Committee, the central bank said it would hold its key federal funds interest rate target range at 1/4 percent to 1/2 percent as it attempts to manage the nation's inflation rate to 2 percent or below.
In addition, the FOMC expects "only gradual increases" in the federal funds rate to match changes in economic conditions. That means the federal funds interest rate "is likely to remain, for some time, below" levels over a longer time.
As noted here last week, the U.S. economy, while reasonably healthy now, faces increasing drag from struggling economies around the world.
That's the crux of what Fed chair Janet Yellen told Congress, a sign that the Fed sees an approaching storm that could drag the American economy away from its path to full recovery.
With luck and careful monitoring, which the Fed promises to do, economic recovery in the U.S. will continue, albeit slowly even as other major nations continue to struggle.
Separately, a hedge fund based in London predicted that if the UK leaves the European Union, Ireland will be forced to leave also, because of the close economic ties between the two countries.
This prediction did not sit well with the Irish, on this 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising that brought independence after more than 400 years of domination by England.
The Wisdom of Children
An upcoming general election in Ireland prompted The Irish Times to show a debate video to a group of children, age 9 to 11. The kids were not impressed, and suggested the politicians stop shouting, calm down and use simple words.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., Republican candidates for the presidency try to outdo each other in how much vitriol they can spew, threatening a lawsuit, and yelling "liar, liar."
Maybe it's time for a vote by American kids as to which candidate is more childish.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., Republican candidates for the presidency try to outdo each other in how much vitriol they can spew, threatening a lawsuit, and yelling "liar, liar."
Maybe it's time for a vote by American kids as to which candidate is more childish.
Monday, February 15, 2016
The Big Gamble
Be careful what you wish for.
The sudden death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia signifies a tragedy greater than the passing of a prominent jurist.
The same-day politicization of any choice to succeed him -- within an hour of the announcement of his passing and days before a funeral -- defies any sense of decorum and damages constitutional principles as well as tradition, responsibility and history.
In their insistence that President Barack Obama ignore his obligation and responsibility to name a successor, Republicans claim there is an 80-year tradition of not nominating a SCOTUS justice during an election year.
Not true. Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the Senate in 1988 -- a presidential election year -- after Reagan's ill-fated choice of Robert Bork.
But this is different, you say. Well, yes. Reagan was a Republican, and his successor was his vice president, George H.W. Bush.
Moreover, fact-checkers pointed out that Supreme Court justices have been nominated and confirmed during election years six times since 1900.
Even so, GOP leaders and presidential candidates continue to insist that they will block any nominee Obama chooses because they say he should wait until the voice of the people be heard on Election Day as to what kind of person they want in one of the three key branches of government.
But, some say, voters have already done that -- twice -- by electing President Obama, a Democrat.
Nevertheless, Republicans base their call for delay, delay, delay on the premise that the next President will be a conservative from the right wing of the Republican Party.
But what if they lose that gamble?
What if the GOP succeeds in delaying a SCOTUS replacement until after Inauguration Day on January 20 of next year, leaving the nation's highest court with an empty chair for nearly a full year, if not more?
For starters, that leaves the court one jurist shy of its constitutionally set nine-member quota, and likely will cause a 4-4 split on some major cases in the meantime.
An evenly divided court means no decision at all, and the lower court ruling stands.
But here's the real danger for the GOP's big gamble:
What if they succeed in blocking Obama's choice and a Democrat wins in November? They then face the charge of needlessly crippling the Supreme Court for at least 11 months until Inauguration Day, plus however much more time while the new President selects a nominee and the Senate goes to its advise and consent mode.
Count two of the delay allegation is that Republicans vainly tried to humble an outgoing President, and caused yet another nomination fight over a sorely needed member of the Supreme Court.
For now, Republicans insist that the choice be delayed until after the voters are heard on Election Day.
Be careful what you wish for.
The sudden death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia signifies a tragedy greater than the passing of a prominent jurist.
The same-day politicization of any choice to succeed him -- within an hour of the announcement of his passing and days before a funeral -- defies any sense of decorum and damages constitutional principles as well as tradition, responsibility and history.
In their insistence that President Barack Obama ignore his obligation and responsibility to name a successor, Republicans claim there is an 80-year tradition of not nominating a SCOTUS justice during an election year.
Not true. Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the Senate in 1988 -- a presidential election year -- after Reagan's ill-fated choice of Robert Bork.
But this is different, you say. Well, yes. Reagan was a Republican, and his successor was his vice president, George H.W. Bush.
Moreover, fact-checkers pointed out that Supreme Court justices have been nominated and confirmed during election years six times since 1900.
Even so, GOP leaders and presidential candidates continue to insist that they will block any nominee Obama chooses because they say he should wait until the voice of the people be heard on Election Day as to what kind of person they want in one of the three key branches of government.
But, some say, voters have already done that -- twice -- by electing President Obama, a Democrat.
Nevertheless, Republicans base their call for delay, delay, delay on the premise that the next President will be a conservative from the right wing of the Republican Party.
But what if they lose that gamble?
What if the GOP succeeds in delaying a SCOTUS replacement until after Inauguration Day on January 20 of next year, leaving the nation's highest court with an empty chair for nearly a full year, if not more?
For starters, that leaves the court one jurist shy of its constitutionally set nine-member quota, and likely will cause a 4-4 split on some major cases in the meantime.
An evenly divided court means no decision at all, and the lower court ruling stands.
But here's the real danger for the GOP's big gamble:
What if they succeed in blocking Obama's choice and a Democrat wins in November? They then face the charge of needlessly crippling the Supreme Court for at least 11 months until Inauguration Day, plus however much more time while the new President selects a nominee and the Senate goes to its advise and consent mode.
Count two of the delay allegation is that Republicans vainly tried to humble an outgoing President, and caused yet another nomination fight over a sorely needed member of the Supreme Court.
For now, Republicans insist that the choice be delayed until after the voters are heard on Election Day.
Be careful what you wish for.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Bafflegab and Balderdash
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with balderdash.
"King, eh? I didn't vote for him." -- Monty Python
Debate moderators, as journalists, must ask probing questions of those who hope to become President of the United States. But those same reporters must also insist that the candidates actually answer the questions.
Politicians typically ignore the premise of a question and segue to a long and rambling talking point (lecture) that may sound good but means little. It's up to the moderators to push for a true response.
Maybe Judge Judy should preside.
During Saturday evening's Republican debate in South Carolina, candidate Donald J. Trump noted that the World Trade Center "came down during the reign of President George W. Bush."
Trump has used the word "reign" several times before in reference to the U.S. presidential tenure.
Reminder: Presidents are not monarchs, and do NOT reign. Continuing to use "reign" says a lot about how Trump would behave as President.
"King, eh? I didn't vote for him." -- Monty Python
Debate moderators, as journalists, must ask probing questions of those who hope to become President of the United States. But those same reporters must also insist that the candidates actually answer the questions.
Politicians typically ignore the premise of a question and segue to a long and rambling talking point (lecture) that may sound good but means little. It's up to the moderators to push for a true response.
Maybe Judge Judy should preside.
During Saturday evening's Republican debate in South Carolina, candidate Donald J. Trump noted that the World Trade Center "came down during the reign of President George W. Bush."
Trump has used the word "reign" several times before in reference to the U.S. presidential tenure.
Reminder: Presidents are not monarchs, and do NOT reign. Continuing to use "reign" says a lot about how Trump would behave as President.
Watching, It Bears
"It's all about stuff." -- George Carlin
The bad news bears watching as rate reductions ripple around the world and head toward the U.S. Meanwhile, Sweden's central bank has cut its key lending rate even further below zero, following the Bank of Japan's reduction to just below zero.
Why do this? Academics will say it encourages investment, which improves the economy by making more money available for people to use.
More simply put, it tells people not to save money but to spend it. After all, an economic slowdown -- a recession -- happens when people stop buying stuff. This tells retailers not to stock their shelves, and prompts manufacturers to stop making stuff since people are not buying.
So around and down it goes, until someone decides to stop saving for a rainy day, since that rainy day is here.
The bottom line, therefore, is that a negative interest rate means you're paying a bank to hold your money for you. That makes even less sense when you remember that inflation -- rising prices -- hits your purse a second time.
Of course, a negative interest rate doesn't affect the average household, but it does mean savings accounts bring a minimal interest. As well stuff your money in a mattress.
But such action by central banks are meant to affect the total movement of money on a national scale. And the faster money moves, the better off the economy.
So that's the plan. When an economy slows, central banks lower interest rates to encourage spending, starting with new investment to increase production, which makes more stuff, which means a larger supply and lower prices, which means people buy more stuff because it's less expensive. And a higher demand entices manufacturers to make even more stuff, and the growth cycle continues.
In theory, that's what should happen. In reality, it doesn't always happen that way. But it does happen often enough to continue that strategy. Even so, it doesn't happen as quickly as the central bank experts hope.
And, of course, not all the experts and financial gurus believe in that theory. In general, liberals do but conservatives do not.
So what happens when liberals at some central banks lower interest rates as they follow that strategy? Japan and Sweden already have and England and the European Union central bank may follow. But the U.S. Federal Reserve, in the world's largest economy, instead raises interest rates?
Can you say conflict?
Watching, it bears, as Yoda might say.
The bad news bears watching as rate reductions ripple around the world and head toward the U.S. Meanwhile, Sweden's central bank has cut its key lending rate even further below zero, following the Bank of Japan's reduction to just below zero.
Why do this? Academics will say it encourages investment, which improves the economy by making more money available for people to use.
More simply put, it tells people not to save money but to spend it. After all, an economic slowdown -- a recession -- happens when people stop buying stuff. This tells retailers not to stock their shelves, and prompts manufacturers to stop making stuff since people are not buying.
So around and down it goes, until someone decides to stop saving for a rainy day, since that rainy day is here.
The bottom line, therefore, is that a negative interest rate means you're paying a bank to hold your money for you. That makes even less sense when you remember that inflation -- rising prices -- hits your purse a second time.
Of course, a negative interest rate doesn't affect the average household, but it does mean savings accounts bring a minimal interest. As well stuff your money in a mattress.
But such action by central banks are meant to affect the total movement of money on a national scale. And the faster money moves, the better off the economy.
So that's the plan. When an economy slows, central banks lower interest rates to encourage spending, starting with new investment to increase production, which makes more stuff, which means a larger supply and lower prices, which means people buy more stuff because it's less expensive. And a higher demand entices manufacturers to make even more stuff, and the growth cycle continues.
In theory, that's what should happen. In reality, it doesn't always happen that way. But it does happen often enough to continue that strategy. Even so, it doesn't happen as quickly as the central bank experts hope.
And, of course, not all the experts and financial gurus believe in that theory. In general, liberals do but conservatives do not.
So what happens when liberals at some central banks lower interest rates as they follow that strategy? Japan and Sweden already have and England and the European Union central bank may follow. But the U.S. Federal Reserve, in the world's largest economy, instead raises interest rates?
Can you say conflict?
Watching, it bears, as Yoda might say.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Yellen to Congress: Caution
The U.S. economy, while reasonably healthy now, faces increasing drag from struggling economies around the world.
That's the crux of what Fed chair Janet Yellen told Congress this week. The warning flag was the clearest sign the Fed sees an approaching storm that could drag the American economy away from its path to full recovery.
Readers of this space may remember that these cautionary notes were sounded here many weeks ago even as the Fed lightly touched the economic brakes to stabilize a recovering economy.
Most recently, we noted ten days ago the good news for the U.S. economy included more jobs, a lower unemployment rate and another rise in Gross Domestic Product.
The not-so-good news was that other major nations are still struggling, including a "slowdown and rebalancing" in China, increasing pressure for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, a negative interest rate from Japan's central bank, and confusion among delegates to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, as to the direction of the world's economy.
So while the U.S. is economically healthy, the rest of the world is not.
The International Monetary Fund reported "subdued demand and diminished prospects" among emerging markets and developing countries. And since these nations account for more than 70 percent of global growth, the IMF noted, economic activity declined for the fifth consecutive year.
The Commerce Department reported GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2015 of 0.7 percent, compared to an increase of 2.0 percent in the third quarter. Separately, the IMF predicted that U.S. total output would rise by 2.6 percent this year, compared to 2.5 percent in 2015.
Now, the Fed is not quite so sure it will boost its key interest rate any time soon. In her statement to Congress this week, Yellen said the central bank will be cautious about tightening monetary policy rather than risk pushing the economy back into recession.
"Financial conditions in the United States have recently become less supportive of growth," Yellen said, and "if they prove persistent, could weigh on the outlook for economic activity."
In particular, she added, foreign developments "pose risks to U.S. economic growth." And this uncertainty, Yellen said, has led to "increased volatility" in global markets.
Separately, the Department of Labor emphasized that there have been 71 consecutive months of job growth, adding 14 million jobs, and the unemployment rate has plummeted from a "nearly catastrophic high of 10 percent" to its current rate of 4.9 percent.
In all, as noted here before, the American economy is on reasonably sound footing. However, global stumbling, ranging from below zero interest rates posted by Japan's central bank, a change of pace in China, and the possibility of the Britain leaving the European Union dance floor, may stop the music for the U.S. recovery, and cause it to trip over itself and fall back into recession.
That's the crux of what Fed chair Janet Yellen told Congress this week. The warning flag was the clearest sign the Fed sees an approaching storm that could drag the American economy away from its path to full recovery.
Readers of this space may remember that these cautionary notes were sounded here many weeks ago even as the Fed lightly touched the economic brakes to stabilize a recovering economy.
Most recently, we noted ten days ago the good news for the U.S. economy included more jobs, a lower unemployment rate and another rise in Gross Domestic Product.
The not-so-good news was that other major nations are still struggling, including a "slowdown and rebalancing" in China, increasing pressure for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, a negative interest rate from Japan's central bank, and confusion among delegates to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, as to the direction of the world's economy.
So while the U.S. is economically healthy, the rest of the world is not.
The International Monetary Fund reported "subdued demand and diminished prospects" among emerging markets and developing countries. And since these nations account for more than 70 percent of global growth, the IMF noted, economic activity declined for the fifth consecutive year.
The Commerce Department reported GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2015 of 0.7 percent, compared to an increase of 2.0 percent in the third quarter. Separately, the IMF predicted that U.S. total output would rise by 2.6 percent this year, compared to 2.5 percent in 2015.
Now, the Fed is not quite so sure it will boost its key interest rate any time soon. In her statement to Congress this week, Yellen said the central bank will be cautious about tightening monetary policy rather than risk pushing the economy back into recession.
"Financial conditions in the United States have recently become less supportive of growth," Yellen said, and "if they prove persistent, could weigh on the outlook for economic activity."
In particular, she added, foreign developments "pose risks to U.S. economic growth." And this uncertainty, Yellen said, has led to "increased volatility" in global markets.
Separately, the Department of Labor emphasized that there have been 71 consecutive months of job growth, adding 14 million jobs, and the unemployment rate has plummeted from a "nearly catastrophic high of 10 percent" to its current rate of 4.9 percent.
In all, as noted here before, the American economy is on reasonably sound footing. However, global stumbling, ranging from below zero interest rates posted by Japan's central bank, a change of pace in China, and the possibility of the Britain leaving the European Union dance floor, may stop the music for the U.S. recovery, and cause it to trip over itself and fall back into recession.
Data Drivel
"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." -- Mark Twain
Donald Trump complained that the "true" unemployment rate in America is not just 4.9 percent, as the government claims, but could be as high as 42 percent.
Perhaps that would be true if you include among the unemployed all the students, all retirees, all those who are disabled and unable to work, everyone who is hospitalized, and all housewives who choose to stay home, as well as all the mothers and fathers who stay home to care for their children. Plus those who are in prison or in the military. They are, by definition, not in the civilian work force.
As it is, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics counts only those who are 16 and older, who are available for full-time work, want to work and are actively looking for work. The monthly survey does not include those who have stopped looking and those who are working part-time. Under those criteria, the BLS survey yields an unemployment rate of 4.9 percent.
Expand the definition, however, to include discouraged workers -- those who have temporarily given up looking for work -- and you'll get a higher number. Add part-time workers, and you'll get a number that's still higher.
In fact, the BLS does publish six different sets of jobless rates dealing with these various definitions, but the one that gets the most publicity is the one that focuses on those out of work, ready to work, and actively seeking full-time work. Currently, the number is 4.9 percent.
And there are other ways to get higher numbers. If you divide the total American number of workers by the total population, you get a figure of almost 60 percent. And that means the other 40 percent are unemployed. But that calculation of workers counts only those people 16 and older. Plug in the number of children in America who are not working, and you'll find that more than half of all Americans are unemployed.
So yes, the leading GOP presidential candidate is correct, in a sense, when he warns that the American unemployment rate is higher that the featured number. Doing so implies that the government lies, not an unusual strategy for politicians to use.
But take a closer look at the data and check on which set of numbers the opposition chooses to talk about, and you have to decide who is, in fact, speaking truth, half-truth or innuendo. Or is flat-out lying.
Donald Trump complained that the "true" unemployment rate in America is not just 4.9 percent, as the government claims, but could be as high as 42 percent.
Perhaps that would be true if you include among the unemployed all the students, all retirees, all those who are disabled and unable to work, everyone who is hospitalized, and all housewives who choose to stay home, as well as all the mothers and fathers who stay home to care for their children. Plus those who are in prison or in the military. They are, by definition, not in the civilian work force.
As it is, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics counts only those who are 16 and older, who are available for full-time work, want to work and are actively looking for work. The monthly survey does not include those who have stopped looking and those who are working part-time. Under those criteria, the BLS survey yields an unemployment rate of 4.9 percent.
Expand the definition, however, to include discouraged workers -- those who have temporarily given up looking for work -- and you'll get a higher number. Add part-time workers, and you'll get a number that's still higher.
In fact, the BLS does publish six different sets of jobless rates dealing with these various definitions, but the one that gets the most publicity is the one that focuses on those out of work, ready to work, and actively seeking full-time work. Currently, the number is 4.9 percent.
And there are other ways to get higher numbers. If you divide the total American number of workers by the total population, you get a figure of almost 60 percent. And that means the other 40 percent are unemployed. But that calculation of workers counts only those people 16 and older. Plug in the number of children in America who are not working, and you'll find that more than half of all Americans are unemployed.
So yes, the leading GOP presidential candidate is correct, in a sense, when he warns that the American unemployment rate is higher that the featured number. Doing so implies that the government lies, not an unusual strategy for politicians to use.
But take a closer look at the data and check on which set of numbers the opposition chooses to talk about, and you have to decide who is, in fact, speaking truth, half-truth or innuendo. Or is flat-out lying.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Dialog and Dialect
It ain't what you say, it's the way how you say it.
"Speak the speech I pray you, as I did teach it to you, trippingly on the tongue." -- Shakespeare.
Writing is half the work. The other half is research, and 90 percent of the rest is preparation, often subconscious. -- The Yogi Berra School of Literary Excellence
A writer's task is to communicate, but if the writer's grammar, spelling, punctuation and style clash with the reader's sense of what is acceptable, readers are distracted by what they perceive as improper usage, and the writer's message is lost. This is also true for speakers.
There are social levels as well as regions that play a role in how people speak and write, and this is true of many countries.
Not all the Irish, for example, sound like Barry Fitzgerald, and never have, since there are several distinct patterns depending on geography, among other things. Cork City is one, Dublin another, Belfast another, and Limerick still another. And there are social levels that play a role also. New York City, for example, has several dialects, and on these dialects are different from those in Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston SC, and New Orleans.
Dialects, whether social or regional, formed the basis for the movie, "My Fair Lady," about Eliza Doolittle and Prof. Henry Higgins, based on the play, "Pygmalion," by G.B. Shaw. The premise was that a young woman with the Cockney dialect of London could be accepted in higher society by simply changing her speech patterns. The Higgins character, by the way, was based on a friend Shaw knew named Henry Sweet, one of the early founders of the study of phonetics.
Speech and writing, then, apply differing standards. An editor looks for "correctness" while a linguist knows that patterns vary by region and social level. Age, too, for that matter.
There is no such thing as a "correct" universal pronunciation, only that some dialects and pronunciations carry more prestige than others. But that is a social judgment. To a linguist, all dialects are equal. For editors and writers, it's important to write for the most clarity.
Writing in dialect is useful, of course, and serves an important purpose in developing characteristics. Playwright Amiri Baraka, for example, wrote many successful dramas in the dialect known as Black English. However, he wrote prose passages in what can be called Standard American Written English.
Politicians are also famous for varying their speech depending on their audience. Lyndon Johnson in the Oval Office spoke in a way more understandable to a New Jersey listener. On the stump down home in Texas, he would be easily understood by fellow Texans, but New Jerseyans would be at a loss.
Not all politicians do this, of course. There is no mistaking Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' roots in Brooklyn, even though he has lived in and represented Vermont for decades. And Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke in the social dialect that showed his background. Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham reveals his Carolina home every time he speaks. Ronald Reagan also showed his Great Plains dialect, favored by Hollywood producers, in his speechmaking.
As with many other things in life, to quote the old song, "It ain't what you say, it's the way how'd you say it."
"Speak the speech I pray you, as I did teach it to you, trippingly on the tongue." -- Shakespeare.
Writing is half the work. The other half is research, and 90 percent of the rest is preparation, often subconscious. -- The Yogi Berra School of Literary Excellence
A writer's task is to communicate, but if the writer's grammar, spelling, punctuation and style clash with the reader's sense of what is acceptable, readers are distracted by what they perceive as improper usage, and the writer's message is lost. This is also true for speakers.
There are social levels as well as regions that play a role in how people speak and write, and this is true of many countries.
Not all the Irish, for example, sound like Barry Fitzgerald, and never have, since there are several distinct patterns depending on geography, among other things. Cork City is one, Dublin another, Belfast another, and Limerick still another. And there are social levels that play a role also. New York City, for example, has several dialects, and on these dialects are different from those in Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston SC, and New Orleans.
Dialects, whether social or regional, formed the basis for the movie, "My Fair Lady," about Eliza Doolittle and Prof. Henry Higgins, based on the play, "Pygmalion," by G.B. Shaw. The premise was that a young woman with the Cockney dialect of London could be accepted in higher society by simply changing her speech patterns. The Higgins character, by the way, was based on a friend Shaw knew named Henry Sweet, one of the early founders of the study of phonetics.
Speech and writing, then, apply differing standards. An editor looks for "correctness" while a linguist knows that patterns vary by region and social level. Age, too, for that matter.
There is no such thing as a "correct" universal pronunciation, only that some dialects and pronunciations carry more prestige than others. But that is a social judgment. To a linguist, all dialects are equal. For editors and writers, it's important to write for the most clarity.
Writing in dialect is useful, of course, and serves an important purpose in developing characteristics. Playwright Amiri Baraka, for example, wrote many successful dramas in the dialect known as Black English. However, he wrote prose passages in what can be called Standard American Written English.
Politicians are also famous for varying their speech depending on their audience. Lyndon Johnson in the Oval Office spoke in a way more understandable to a New Jersey listener. On the stump down home in Texas, he would be easily understood by fellow Texans, but New Jerseyans would be at a loss.
Not all politicians do this, of course. There is no mistaking Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' roots in Brooklyn, even though he has lived in and represented Vermont for decades. And Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke in the social dialect that showed his background. Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham reveals his Carolina home every time he speaks. Ronald Reagan also showed his Great Plains dialect, favored by Hollywood producers, in his speechmaking.
As with many other things in life, to quote the old song, "It ain't what you say, it's the way how'd you say it."
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Wonky Tonk
"We'll take our country back!" say the candidates.
"Who took it away?" asks the citizen.
"We'll make America great again!" say the candidates.
"When did it stumble into failure?" asks the citizen.
Meanwhile, by most objective measures, the U.S. continues its recovery from one of the worst decades in its history.
The Great Recession ended seven years ago, disastrous wars in the Middle East have ended, employment and wages are up, production is increasing and the national deficit is declining.
So who's complaining?
Racists, xenophobes and the ultra-rich who fear a closing of the income gap, that's who.
This election campaign has seen and heard many warnings and complaints alleging terrible things being done to America by the current President. But what's so terrible about more people working and more people covered by health insurance?
"We report, you decide" is the motto touted by the faithfully conservative Fox News network presenters and commentators. But if they fail to report or talk down any good news and stress any political bad news they can dig up, voters will be unable to make rational, educated choices in this election year, and will be forced to rely on biased claims of the radical righteous. That's especially odd, since these are the folks who complain loudly and long about bias in other media outlets.
When challenged about slanted and biased coverage on right-wing media, a defensive conservative replied, "Yeah, but it's my kind of bias!"
"Who took it away?" asks the citizen.
"We'll make America great again!" say the candidates.
"When did it stumble into failure?" asks the citizen.
Meanwhile, by most objective measures, the U.S. continues its recovery from one of the worst decades in its history.
The Great Recession ended seven years ago, disastrous wars in the Middle East have ended, employment and wages are up, production is increasing and the national deficit is declining.
So who's complaining?
Racists, xenophobes and the ultra-rich who fear a closing of the income gap, that's who.
This election campaign has seen and heard many warnings and complaints alleging terrible things being done to America by the current President. But what's so terrible about more people working and more people covered by health insurance?
"We report, you decide" is the motto touted by the faithfully conservative Fox News network presenters and commentators. But if they fail to report or talk down any good news and stress any political bad news they can dig up, voters will be unable to make rational, educated choices in this election year, and will be forced to rely on biased claims of the radical righteous. That's especially odd, since these are the folks who complain loudly and long about bias in other media outlets.
When challenged about slanted and biased coverage on right-wing media, a defensive conservative replied, "Yeah, but it's my kind of bias!"
Friday, February 5, 2016
Econ Roundup
"Take my money ... please," said the Henny Youngman Central Bank as it set its key interest rate below zero.
The good news for the U.S. economy the past few days has included more jobs, a lower unemployment rate and another rise in Gross Domestic Product.
The not-so-good news is that other major nations are still struggling, including a "slowdown and rebalancing" in China, increasing pressure for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, a negative interest rate from Japan's central bank, and confusion among delegates to the World Economic Forum as to the direction of the world's economy.
So while the U.S. is economically healthy, the rest of the world is not so much.
The International Monetary Fund sees "subdued demand and diminished prospects" among emerging market and developing countries. And since these nations account for more than 70 percent of global growth, this does not bode well for the world. Moreover, the IMF noted, economic activity here declined for the fifth consecutive year.
Last week, the Commerce Department reported GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2015 of 0.7 percent, compared to an increase of 2.0 percent in the third quarter. Separately, the IMF predicted that U.S. total output would rise by 2.6 percent this year, compared to 2.5 percent in 2015.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Labor said Friday that the nation added 151,000 jobs in January, making for 71 consecutive months of private sector job growth, for a total of 14 million jobs added since early 2010. The unemployment rate slipped to 4.9 percent, half what it was seven years ago, prompting President Barack Obama to say these are all good signs for the U.S., even as he warned of global weakness.
Now, Republican candidates in the current presidential race will have to find something else to talk about, Obama noted, instead of lamenting what they claim is the economic gloom and doom that America faces.
The good news for the U.S. economy the past few days has included more jobs, a lower unemployment rate and another rise in Gross Domestic Product.
The not-so-good news is that other major nations are still struggling, including a "slowdown and rebalancing" in China, increasing pressure for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, a negative interest rate from Japan's central bank, and confusion among delegates to the World Economic Forum as to the direction of the world's economy.
So while the U.S. is economically healthy, the rest of the world is not so much.
The International Monetary Fund sees "subdued demand and diminished prospects" among emerging market and developing countries. And since these nations account for more than 70 percent of global growth, this does not bode well for the world. Moreover, the IMF noted, economic activity here declined for the fifth consecutive year.
Last week, the Commerce Department reported GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2015 of 0.7 percent, compared to an increase of 2.0 percent in the third quarter. Separately, the IMF predicted that U.S. total output would rise by 2.6 percent this year, compared to 2.5 percent in 2015.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Labor said Friday that the nation added 151,000 jobs in January, making for 71 consecutive months of private sector job growth, for a total of 14 million jobs added since early 2010. The unemployment rate slipped to 4.9 percent, half what it was seven years ago, prompting President Barack Obama to say these are all good signs for the U.S., even as he warned of global weakness.
Now, Republican candidates in the current presidential race will have to find something else to talk about, Obama noted, instead of lamenting what they claim is the economic gloom and doom that America faces.
Emoticonspiracy
"The French don't care what you do, actually, as long as you pronounce it properly." -- Prof. Henry Higgins in "My Fair Lady."
#JeSuisCirconflexe -- Social media hashtag.
The Academie Francaise said students should not be penalized when they fail to use accent marks when preparing assignments. And when several book publishers said they will include sans-circumflex spellings in textbooks, the result was fury and outrage.
How are students to know how to pronounce a word if accent markings are missing? Where will all those orphaned cedilles hang out? This is a grave, if not an acute, problem.
"A sad day," said one observer. "First cursive writing went out the window. Now the digital keyboard may be in decline. We may be left with nothing but the emoticon," the observer lamented. "Words will simply fail us entirely."
Moreover, the crisis has gone international, prompting France's education minister to say the changes will not mean the end of the circumflex, according to a BBC report, and that both old and new spellings will remain correct. The circumflex is the hat-like symbol over vowels that indicates a pronunciation change.
Part of the reason for the move is the increasing dominance of computer keyboards in writing, since finding the various accent marks requires additional work. But this "dumbing down" of the writing process n'es pas un excuse, say protesters, and this was aggravated by the listing of more than 2,000 French words with proposed new spellings.
The French Academy has long been known for its fierce defence of linguistic purity, leading to a ban on the import of le weekend into the language.
While it's true that English has for centuries borrowed, adopted, taken, or stolen many words from French and other languages, dropping accent markings in the process, this is no consolation to the warriors in la guerre linguistique.
The language war accelerated after reports that publishers would add spelling reforms in books for the upcoming academic year. Students will then have a choice, the BBC reported, to use either the old spellings or the new ones, and teachers will have to accept both as correct.
Good luck with that one. Or as it might appear in the new French version, Bon chance avec ce ca.
Somehow it doesn't look the same without the cedille hanging there.
#JeSuisCirconflexe -- Social media hashtag.
The Academie Francaise said students should not be penalized when they fail to use accent marks when preparing assignments. And when several book publishers said they will include sans-circumflex spellings in textbooks, the result was fury and outrage.
How are students to know how to pronounce a word if accent markings are missing? Where will all those orphaned cedilles hang out? This is a grave, if not an acute, problem.
"A sad day," said one observer. "First cursive writing went out the window. Now the digital keyboard may be in decline. We may be left with nothing but the emoticon," the observer lamented. "Words will simply fail us entirely."
Moreover, the crisis has gone international, prompting France's education minister to say the changes will not mean the end of the circumflex, according to a BBC report, and that both old and new spellings will remain correct. The circumflex is the hat-like symbol over vowels that indicates a pronunciation change.
Part of the reason for the move is the increasing dominance of computer keyboards in writing, since finding the various accent marks requires additional work. But this "dumbing down" of the writing process n'es pas un excuse, say protesters, and this was aggravated by the listing of more than 2,000 French words with proposed new spellings.
The French Academy has long been known for its fierce defence of linguistic purity, leading to a ban on the import of le weekend into the language.
While it's true that English has for centuries borrowed, adopted, taken, or stolen many words from French and other languages, dropping accent markings in the process, this is no consolation to the warriors in la guerre linguistique.
The language war accelerated after reports that publishers would add spelling reforms in books for the upcoming academic year. Students will then have a choice, the BBC reported, to use either the old spellings or the new ones, and teachers will have to accept both as correct.
Good luck with that one. Or as it might appear in the new French version, Bon chance avec ce ca.
Somehow it doesn't look the same without the cedille hanging there.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Editor's Twitch
Editors unite! You have nothing to lose but your pencils!
Editor's Twitch is what happens when you see writing from supposedly professional users of the language -- including grammar school teachers charged with educating your children -- that is so unwieldy that you suffer a nervous twitch and want to retaliate by editing and correcting the offensive phrasing and return it to the teacher and the principal.
You know you have Editor's Twitch when you're compelled to edit and correct sale signs in department stores.
You know you're in a stable relationship when your partner is no longer embarrassed when you do.
Here's something for educators to remember: Assigning essays as a punishment is more than counterproductive, it's downright destructive, because it teaches students to hate writing.
Educators are supposed to encourage love of writing, not inflict it as punishment.
Editor's Twitch is what happens when you see writing from supposedly professional users of the language -- including grammar school teachers charged with educating your children -- that is so unwieldy that you suffer a nervous twitch and want to retaliate by editing and correcting the offensive phrasing and return it to the teacher and the principal.
You know you have Editor's Twitch when you're compelled to edit and correct sale signs in department stores.
You know you're in a stable relationship when your partner is no longer embarrassed when you do.
Here's something for educators to remember: Assigning essays as a punishment is more than counterproductive, it's downright destructive, because it teaches students to hate writing.
Educators are supposed to encourage love of writing, not inflict it as punishment.
News and Gossip
Gossip is what people want to know.
News is what they need to know.
Who decides which is news and which is gossip? In ordinary conversation, it depends on who's talking and who's listening. News to one is gossip to another.
In journalism, however, there is often a thin line between the two, but even so, a decision must be made. Information that is crucial to one person is irrelevant, useless or boring to another.
Reporters and editors decide every day, and in broadcasting every hour, which item to use which to leave aside, all while keeping in mind that "all news is local." A local daily or weekly newspaper will print items that to a major metro daily is back-fence gossip. And an American television station will carry material that a Canadian facility will not. And vice versa. Such decisions are called news judgment. For example, how often do U.S. viewers see televised reports about politics in Canada or Mexico? Unless one lives in one of the border states, the answer is, seldom.
Unless a piece of information about what's happening in the neighborhood, the city, the state, the nation or the world has some relevance to readers and viewers, that story will be deemed either news or gossip. There are, of course, gossip sheets in print and TV programs that feature similar information.
Each has its readers and viewers, and decisions as to which is which are made daily by reporters and editors on one side and by readers and viewers on the other.
It's called freedom of the press, marketing, and satisfying a demand.
Look on it as a variation of Economics 101, the Law of Supply and Demand.
News is what they need to know.
Who decides which is news and which is gossip? In ordinary conversation, it depends on who's talking and who's listening. News to one is gossip to another.
In journalism, however, there is often a thin line between the two, but even so, a decision must be made. Information that is crucial to one person is irrelevant, useless or boring to another.
Reporters and editors decide every day, and in broadcasting every hour, which item to use which to leave aside, all while keeping in mind that "all news is local." A local daily or weekly newspaper will print items that to a major metro daily is back-fence gossip. And an American television station will carry material that a Canadian facility will not. And vice versa. Such decisions are called news judgment. For example, how often do U.S. viewers see televised reports about politics in Canada or Mexico? Unless one lives in one of the border states, the answer is, seldom.
Unless a piece of information about what's happening in the neighborhood, the city, the state, the nation or the world has some relevance to readers and viewers, that story will be deemed either news or gossip. There are, of course, gossip sheets in print and TV programs that feature similar information.
Each has its readers and viewers, and decisions as to which is which are made daily by reporters and editors on one side and by readers and viewers on the other.
It's called freedom of the press, marketing, and satisfying a demand.
Look on it as a variation of Economics 101, the Law of Supply and Demand.
Grammar Grab Bag
"Who" is for people, "that" is for things.
Good stories write themselves. The trick for the writer is to open a channel to the heart of the story and let its spirit light up the page. Nonstandard grammar, unless needed to personify the character, distracts the reader from following the path of the story.
Moreover, the reader may not be aware of the nonstandard usage, but on some level it will slow down the telling. Worse, when the reader recognizes a misuse but can't place why, the reader stops to puzzle about it, which slows the story line even more.
Here are some recent examples: A candidate said during one of the debates, "We need a leader that ..." Standard usage specifies "who" for people and "that" for things. Another speaker said, "Like you're saying ..." This distracts listeners/readers because they know even on a subconscious level the word "as" makes for better flow.
Standards change, of course. Words and phrases change. New words are coined daily, and some survive to become widely accepted, while others are rejected.
Nonetheless, there are standards, even though these, too, evolve and change. Standard usage of 1916 may be considered archaic today, and popular words of 1956 may be considered rude today.
Society changes, and language changes with it. Acceptable behavior then may not be acceptable now, and some examples could include women's right to vote and segregated schools. Both issues were not only widely accepted, but enforced by law.
However, times change. Attitudes change. Laws change. What may have been legal and moral a few decades ago is no longer legal nor moral in today's society. And language changes to reflect a society's cultural, legal and moral values.
Good stories write themselves. The trick for the writer is to open a channel to the heart of the story and let its spirit light up the page. Nonstandard grammar, unless needed to personify the character, distracts the reader from following the path of the story.
Moreover, the reader may not be aware of the nonstandard usage, but on some level it will slow down the telling. Worse, when the reader recognizes a misuse but can't place why, the reader stops to puzzle about it, which slows the story line even more.
Here are some recent examples: A candidate said during one of the debates, "We need a leader that ..." Standard usage specifies "who" for people and "that" for things. Another speaker said, "Like you're saying ..." This distracts listeners/readers because they know even on a subconscious level the word "as" makes for better flow.
Standards change, of course. Words and phrases change. New words are coined daily, and some survive to become widely accepted, while others are rejected.
Nonetheless, there are standards, even though these, too, evolve and change. Standard usage of 1916 may be considered archaic today, and popular words of 1956 may be considered rude today.
Society changes, and language changes with it. Acceptable behavior then may not be acceptable now, and some examples could include women's right to vote and segregated schools. Both issues were not only widely accepted, but enforced by law.
However, times change. Attitudes change. Laws change. What may have been legal and moral a few decades ago is no longer legal nor moral in today's society. And language changes to reflect a society's cultural, legal and moral values.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Grammar and Standards
Editors and those knowledgeable about language hear sounds and pronunciations that vary widely from standard usage.
Spelling and grammar are critical elements in establishing a standard. Pronunciation may vary according to regional and social dialects, but spelling does not. Some writers use dialectal spellings to establish a character, and this is a useful device. But in doing so, the writer risks losing the attention of the reader. Therefore, writing in dialect should be done sparingly, and only in dialog passages to fix the social status of the character.
While there are certainly many variations in speech patterns, grammar and usage, there is general agreement on a standard, which enables users in a nation with numerous dialects to communicate in writing with relative ease.
Moreover, unless the regional or social level of the speaker is essential to the nature of the character, people in broadcasting or show business should use what some linguists call the "standard American written English," with appropriate speech patterns to match.
There are exceptions, of course. Dr. Phil McGraw relies heavily on his Texas drawl to establish his TV persona, and may not have achieved the success he has without it.
On the other hand, letters and sounds that are dropped by some news announcers can detract from the attention span of listeners. It's common in many dialects to drop consonants -- in particular a T or a D -- from the middle of a word, or to change a T to a D between two vowels.
For example, here are some pronunciations heard on Philadelphia TV stations:
"Two hunnerd dollars." "Dennisry," when referring to the work of a dentist. And "Alannic Siddy," the town famous for its Boardwalk and casinos on the coast of New Jersey.
Dialectology and Sociolinguistics are important fields, and are to be honored for their contributions to the study of language and social relationships.
At the same time, however, there are standards for effective communication, and it's important for writers and broadcasters to adhere to these standards, if only because failure to do so detracts from the message.
Spelling and grammar are critical elements in establishing a standard. Pronunciation may vary according to regional and social dialects, but spelling does not. Some writers use dialectal spellings to establish a character, and this is a useful device. But in doing so, the writer risks losing the attention of the reader. Therefore, writing in dialect should be done sparingly, and only in dialog passages to fix the social status of the character.
While there are certainly many variations in speech patterns, grammar and usage, there is general agreement on a standard, which enables users in a nation with numerous dialects to communicate in writing with relative ease.
Moreover, unless the regional or social level of the speaker is essential to the nature of the character, people in broadcasting or show business should use what some linguists call the "standard American written English," with appropriate speech patterns to match.
There are exceptions, of course. Dr. Phil McGraw relies heavily on his Texas drawl to establish his TV persona, and may not have achieved the success he has without it.
On the other hand, letters and sounds that are dropped by some news announcers can detract from the attention span of listeners. It's common in many dialects to drop consonants -- in particular a T or a D -- from the middle of a word, or to change a T to a D between two vowels.
For example, here are some pronunciations heard on Philadelphia TV stations:
"Two hunnerd dollars." "Dennisry," when referring to the work of a dentist. And "Alannic Siddy," the town famous for its Boardwalk and casinos on the coast of New Jersey.
Dialectology and Sociolinguistics are important fields, and are to be honored for their contributions to the study of language and social relationships.
At the same time, however, there are standards for effective communication, and it's important for writers and broadcasters to adhere to these standards, if only because failure to do so detracts from the message.
Broadcast Dialect
All dialects are equal. Each enables its speakers to communicate easily and effectively. Some dialects are perceived as "better," because they have more prestige. That, however, is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Moreover, those who want a career in public speaking tend to use a prestige dialect, and one of these can be called the "broadcast dialect," the manner of speaking most readily understood by more people, and not easily identified with any regional or social group. Related to this job requirement is the ability to speak persuasively, even while reading.
Reading aloud is a skill, and the secret of public speaking is the ability to read aloud without sounding like you're reading aloud.Broadcast Dialect
Student emulate their teachers. Children learn to read from teachers who speak the same way. Result: Young people read aloud in the same manner their teachers used -- a monotone.
Perhaps teachers should take a required course in public speaking so they would not inflict monotonous speaking on future generations.
Moreover, those who want a career in public speaking tend to use a prestige dialect, and one of these can be called the "broadcast dialect," the manner of speaking most readily understood by more people, and not easily identified with any regional or social group. Related to this job requirement is the ability to speak persuasively, even while reading.
Reading aloud is a skill, and the secret of public speaking is the ability to read aloud without sounding like you're reading aloud.Broadcast Dialect
Student emulate their teachers. Children learn to read from teachers who speak the same way. Result: Young people read aloud in the same manner their teachers used -- a monotone.
Perhaps teachers should take a required course in public speaking so they would not inflict monotonous speaking on future generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)