Taking a humorous but analytical look at just about anything in the spirit of Groucho Marx: I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!
A great many Republicans of late are taking umbrage at news reports regarding the victory of their own candidate, Scott Brown, in taking what has been called "Ted Kennedy's Senate seat." They are mightily offended that anyone suggest, imply, or flat-out say that that seat belonged to the late Senator Kennedy.
I suppose I should not be surprised that their inability to comprehend their own native tongue reflects the same rigid inflexibility they exhibit when "discussing" anything else. Nor should I be surprised that they are so willing to politicize something which, even though it's talking about politics, is NOT a political issue. So I am not surprised. But I am disenheartened. No one would be able to get away with making such stupid statements if we still had proper grammar education in our schools.
English is a prehensile language, and sometimes its ability to bend and flex and stretch causes problems. However, the lack of understanding that English can so bend and flex and stretch should never be the root of what has become a disinformation campaign. I don't know who is worse: the people who dropped grammar education from our standard curriculum, or the people who have cynically exploited that for their own nefarious purposes.
Yes, "Ted Kennedy's Senate seat" can, under one interpretation, mean "the seat owned by/belonging to" Ted Kennedy. HOWEVER, it also can mean "the seat most recently occupied by and identified with" Ted Kennedy. Furthermore, we all know journalism abhors both the passive voice ("something is done by someone" as opposed to "someone does something") and long, drawn-out sentences (why I'll never be a journalist, alas). Thus, "Ted Kennedy's Senate seat" is merely journalism's way of saying "the Senate seat most recently occupied by and identified with Ted Kennedy."
So I beg of you, those of you who are blathering on in protest about "Ted Kennedy's Senate seat," give it a rest, already! You're only making yourselves look foolish. Before you sound off again, please take a moment to consider Mark Twain's sage advice: better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt.
Have you seen the Kingsford Matchlight charcoal ad wherein the husband shoos his wife away from the barbecue grill, essentially telling her that since he doesn't go into the kitchen to make salad, she shouldn't try to light his fire [pun intended--Ed.]? He says "there's a technique," and then strikes a match and tosses it in . . . and the charcoal ignites. His wife, with appropriately subtle sarcasm, says "Wow." She then backs away, telling their guests that everything is OK.
I don't know the "genius" [and I use the term very loosely, indeed--Ed.] who created the ad; nor do I know the "geniuses" [ditto--Ed.] at Kingsford who approved it. So I am left with no way even to speculate a possible answer to my question: Why would ANYONE want to buy a product that says its users are idiots?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I used to think that language was the thing that held America together, given our collective fundamental diversity of ethnic backgrounds and life experiences; but I am beginning to wonder. I've been doing a great deal of proofreading work of late. I am appalled by the lack of care and attention that intelligent and otherwise educated people give to their native tongue. And that's after I've made allowance for the fact that everyone, myself included, speaks less precisely than s/he writes, even in relatively formal situations, such as testifying under oath.
No one seems to care whether his/her subjects, verbs, and/or pronouns match--or even whether he/she includes subjects, verbs, and/or pronouns in the first place. No one seems to care whether his/her questions or answers to questions are understandable or responsive. [I especially hate it when someone is asked a "yes or no" question and gives an answer that says everything under the sun EXCEPT for "yes" or "no."--Ed.]
People have been making similar complaints about such signs of the decline and fall of civilization from, well, the decline and fall of Rome (if not earlier). Between the twin battering rams of modern high technology and the lack of organized, official grammar education in our elementary and junior high schools, however, we have exponentially increased the rate of decline. If we cannot understand each other, how can we expect to hang together as a society?
Then again, why am I spitting into the wind? Entropy increases. Still, whenever my time comes, I'd like to leave this "mortal coil" knowing I did my best to leave things better, not worse, for those who will follow.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
And what in the world is wrong with the people who still insist that Barack Obama is not legitimately the president because he's supposedly not a native-born US citizen? His birth certificate HAS been produced (despite all claims to the contrary); two different 1961 newspaper notices reporting his birth have been discovered and publicized; his election was certified by the US Congress, in accordance with the terms of the Constitution--and Congress never would have done that if there had been any legitimate doubts about Obama's ability to satisfy all Constitutionally-mandated requirements. Before the election last November, a right-wing web site even published all the information confirming that Obama is, in fact, a native-born US citizen. Besides, his mother was a US citizen, which automatically confers US citizenship on him. And Hawaii WAS a state in 1961.
The sad, simple truth is that these people are racists, pure and simple, but they don't want to say so--at least, not overtly. So they've latched onto this "issue" to spew their venom while disguising their real agenda. They are a bunch of small-minded, sad, hateful fools. And no matter how much proof is presented, they won't believe it. And they do America, the country they supposedly love so much, a great disservice.
I really hate willful ignorance. But I must remind myself that no one is ever going to be able to change their minds. Mark Twain was right: Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I was reading the editorials in today's Omaha World-Herald, a paper whose editors frequently make Attila the Hun look like a reasonable person, when the following (reproduced in its entirety) caught my eye:
It was a strange scene when U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer of California cried foul during a recent congressional hearing. Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh referred to her as "ma'am" during his testimony, and she pointedly directed him to refer to her as "Senator."
In this age when a traditionalist mind-set sometimes collides awkwardly with a progressive one, the term "ma'am" has become an oddly divisive term in certain situations.
To many progressives such as Sen. Boxer, the term evidently is a symbol of retrograde thinking, a throwback to the day when married women went dutifully by their husband's name ("Mrs. John Smith").
To Gen. Walsh on the other hand, the term "ma'am" was merely one common in formal military usage.
In any case, the general's intention clearly was to show respect. By no means did he deserve such a hard-edged, public reprimand.
Although the taste of self-righteousness was no doubt satisfying to Sen. Boxer, it is excessive for a U.S. senator to make such a show of taking offense when obviously none was intended.
On such matters, the senator should beware of leaping to be so judgmental. It would help if she would raise her consciousness and devote more energy to appreciating cultural diversity.
There are so many errors of logic in this that it is difficult for me to know where to begin. One thing I will admit up front: I did not see the hearing in question, so I have no idea whether the World-Herald editor's description of the event is even accurate.
Is it possible that Sen. Boxer had, at some point prior [either before the proceedings began or earlier during them--Ed.] politely asked the general not to use "ma'am" and he ignored her request, which caused her to make the more pointed comments she made (presuming the editorial recounting is correct)?
Is it possible that the editor's description of the incident is not totally accurate? One person's upbraiding is another's mild request--especially when it's a woman speaking to a man.
What would the World-Herald editor have said if the tables were turned? I have had the personal experience of being excoriated by a judge for calling him "sir" instead of "Your Honor." But the judge was an older, white, male, in charge of the proceedings, and I was merely a participant, the child and spouse of career Air Force members, trying my darnedest to be polite, but getting the protocol wrong. No one thought the judge was out of line. Maybe Sen. Boxer wasn't, either.
How does the World-Herald editor know that "no disrespect was intended"? Did the editor call the general and ask? Words reduced to writing and descriptions of events (once reduced to paper) have an odd habit of sounding neutral. Why, this is the very stuff of diplomacy, to say the meanest thing in the nicest way, so that the other diplomats get the point but the general public does not. The editor was awfully quick to ascribe noble motives to the general and evil ones to Sen. Boxer. Maybe she didn't intend any disrespect, either, but she just wasn't as subtle about making her point as the general apparently was in making his.
Besides, even though "ma'am" is a term "common in formal military usage," the general was not in a military setting. In this country, the civilian authority controls the military. Hasn't the World-Herald editorial staff ever heard of "When in Rome, do as Romans do"? He was testifying before Congress. Yes, he is a military officer speaking in his official capacity. But he is speaking to his employers, the American people, via their elected civilian representatives. His military duty is to show them the respect THEY expect, not force them to accept his version of same.
Of course, the key to the entire snide little piece is the use of the word "evidently." Using it lets the editor ascribe all sorts of nasty motives to Sen. Boxer, yet deny nefarious purpose because the editor was only "speculating." He doesn't really know. Since many people do not read editorials with the skeptical care they should, they forget the "evidently" and go on about their lives believing that Sen. Boxer is a bad, bad, bad--liberal--bad, bad human being. Even if that's not "technically" what the editorial said.
The editor even got careless: "married women went dutifully by their husband's name"? Unless the World-Herald offices are a hotbed of fundamentalist Mormonism, it should have said "married women went dutifully by their husbands' names." Good grief! The World-Herald could use some better copy editors.
Not to mention that the closing line about "cultural diversity" is entirely irrelevant, and contradictory to the main point of the editor's comments. He was defending the use of traditional terminology by a traditional wielder of power against the exercise of a protest to same by a female, non-traditional wielder of power--who actually was the one in charge in that situation. The only cultural diversity the World-Herald seems to accept is the cultural diversity of white males.
The World-Herald editorial staff could do much worse than to take its own advice: "Although the taste of self-righteousness was no doubt satisfying . . ., it is excessive . . . to make such a show of taking offense when obviously none was intended. On such matters, [one] should beware of leaping to be so judgmental."
You may ask me why, when it exasperates me so much, I continue to read the World-Herald's editorial tripe. All I can say is, "keep your friends close--but keep your enemies closer."
Still, I may have to quit reading the paper in any event. I don't know how much more of its official hypocrisy and stupidity my blood pressure can stand.
Don't get me wrong. I know I make plenty of grammatical errors, especially while speaking. Let's face it: none of us talks as carefully and as formally as all of us do while writing. Still, some errors are so egregious that they must be noted, if only to help avoid repeating mistakes with potentially dangerous consequences.
In an NPR news report this morning, repeated reference was made to North Korea's recent testing of "an underground nuclear device." NO, NO, NO! North Korea did not test "an underground nuclear device." North Korea tested a nuclear device underground.
Believe it or not, the placement of the modifier (in this case, the adjective "underground") radically changes the meaning of the sentence. What the news report literally said was that North Korea tested a nuclear device that was to be used underground. What the news report meant was that North Korea blew up a nuclear device in a test it conducted underground. The device itself could be used at ground level or even high in the atmosphere.
None of us would have much to fear from a North Korean underground nuclear device. It would be virtually impossible for North Korea to plant, undetected, an underground nuclear device where it would do us serious harm. Indeed, an underground nuclear device by definition cannot do anyone relatively great harm--that's why the first nuclear test ban treaties banned testing only in the atmosphere or otherwise above ground. Underground testing, considered the safest of the available options, was allowed because none of the treaties' signatories was willing to forgo testing entirely.
Conducting a test of a nuclear device underground, however, means that the device is of risk to us--because the device's use is not limited to the nether realms. North Korea punctuated this point by also testing several short-range missile launching vehicles this past week.
Many people who read this [that is, if any of them do--Ed.] are probably rolling their eyes and accusing me of being too picky, because "we all know what the news report meant." Maybe. Maybe not. Sloppy grammar indicates sloppy thinking. Sloppy thinking makes cogent communication impossible. Lack of cogent communication all too often starts arguments, feuds, even wars.
Though it may not make much difference, Eats, Shoots, and Leaves ought to be mandatory reading in everyone's junior high school curriculum. Maybe, just maybe, that would indirectly prevent some future bloodbath. Winston Churchill himself said it was better to "jaw, jaw, jaw" than to "war, war, war."
(and with apologies to Monty Python for the oblique reference to the Church Police sketch)
A European product called Bio-Oil is being marketed on American TV ads during weekday soap operas. It allegedly reduces the obviousness of scars, stretch marks, and uneven skin tones, which is a most useful product innovation, indeed. [If it works as advertised, of course.--Ed.]
Normally, I'd be willing to cut non-native speakers of English a little slack when they make grammatical errors. English as a language is positively fiendish and difficult to master, even for native speakers. However, in this case, I don't feel quite so generous.
The error? An incorrect preposition: a woman in the commercial says she is "embarrassed with" her stretch marks. One can be "embarrassed by." One can be "embarrassed about." One can even be "embarrassed for." One cannot, however, be "embarrassed with." Not properly, that is. I'll be among the first to admit that prepositions in English are especially tricky. Most of them grew organically, before people got the bright idea to make language make sense; thus, prepositions are hard to explain in nice, neat, comprehensive-but-simple rules. The vast majority of them are idiomatic. [Hey--I said idiomatic, not idiotic.--Ed.]
So why am I reluctant to be kind? The woman doing the speaking doesn't sound like a non-native speaker of English. She sounds 100% American. If the company marketing Bio-Oil could go to all the trouble of finding an American to read its advertising copy, it could have found someone capable of editing that copy correctly.
The underlying reason I'm cranky about this is that every day, I see more examples of people misusing prepositions, which makes what they are trying to say incomprehensible--and which furthermore makes it nearly impossible to teach our impressionable, TV-guzzling youth to do, say, or speak any better.
T.S. Eliot was correct when he wrote "This is the way the world will end, not with a bang but a whimper." Alas for us, the whimper is going to be "But I didn't understand what you meant . . ."
Whatever happened to "you're welcome" as the proper response to "thank you"? On the now rare occasions when I hear it, I nearly jump with surprise and joy. I am sick of hearing "Thank YOU" as a response to "thank you." It sounds like a Gaston and Alphonse routine: an ever-downward spiraling do-loop of "After you," "No, after YOU," "Please, I insist: after YOU" . . .
Yet another example of how we Baby Boomers collectively have failed our children and our children's children by not teaching them proper manners.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Call the Grammar Police, Part II. The next time I hear or see someone using the words "from whence," I am going to scream, pull out my hair, and run around frothing at the mouth. (Not really, but it's a definitive image of the intensity of my feelings about this bit of grammatical atrociousness, don't you think?)
Since "whence" literally means "from where," to say "from whence" is to say "from from where," which is--unless one stutters [and possibly even then--Ed.]--redundant. "Whence" all by its little lonesome is enough, people! Where's a decent copy editor when you need one, anyway?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
And now, the question originally prompting my title for this post. I have listened to and read the reporting about the AIG bonuses and resulting outrage with a mixture of resignation and astonishment.
Resignation, because at some deep level I know the "geniuses" [think "Wile E. Coyote"--Ed.] in the financial industry who took the bonuses under AIG's circumstances, along with the idiots who defend them [again, think "Wile E. Coyote"--Ed.], honestly believe that they deserved those payments and that they did nothing wrong, so they have no reason to give the money back. We talk about people "inside the Beltway" in Washington DC as being out-of-touch, but the Wall Streeters and their publicity toadies are just as much in their own little worlds, divorced from any sense of reality.
Astonishment, because two words fundamental to ANY such discussions and reports and analyses have been entirely absent from the playing field. Those two little words? "Fiduciary duty." This one is axiomatic. It's a "taught in the very first day of law or business school" principle. Anyone who takes responsibility for handling someone else's money kas the fiduciary duty to care for it with more diligence than that person would with even his own funds.
The reckless trading behavior of those in AIG's derivatives division didn't just breach their fiduciary duty to AIG's investors--they demolished it. Therefore, they breached their contracts first; thus, requiring them to forego their bonuses would not breach any contracts; therefore, they should not have received the money; thus, the taxpayers should have no trouble getting it--all of it--back.
Why is no one talking about "fiduciary duty"? Or has that, too, like responding to "thank you" with "you're welcome," gone completely out of style?
