Cookie Monster Grammar

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.