Day: June 25, 2005

Sometimes I just want to say, “Idiots! Think it through!” And then I realize the writers are probably products of public schooling…

Is not one else issitated by people who claim special status as “journalists” writing and speaking subliterate prose in a language they have (usually) spoken all their lives? A few small examples I’ve seen/heard recently will suffice to illustrate my frustration.

• they are one in [sic] the same vs. they are one and the same

• tow the line vs. toe the line

• in mass when the writer means en masse

• begs the question does NOT mean “asks for the question” (arrrgghhh!) it refers to the logical fallacy of petitio principii.

• chomp at the bit vs. champ at the bit

• confusing enervate (rob of energy) with innervate (infuse with energy, stimulate)

• using “the exception proves the rule” as an argument that where a rule fails it validates the rule (silly). “Prove” in this context means “test”.

• [spoken] forte pronounced as “for-tay”. The “e” is silent in “forte” when used to mean “strength” as in “Logical argument is his forte.” I’ll let native English speakers say “for-tay” when they’re talking about “loudness” in a musical phrase, if they wish, because there it’s from Italian, not French, as above.

• hale and farewell vs. hail and farewell (“hale” means “healthy” for those who insist it’s the correct word in the phrase. “Hail” means “Hello.” So there. Military folks do NOT write this wrongly more than one time…)

• “if I was”—has no one even heard of subjunctive construction? “If I were” please.

• upmost vs. utmost

• “wet” when “whet” is meant

• confusing affect (usually a verb meaning to influence; when a noun, overt signs of an emotional state) and effect (usually a noun meaning a result; when a verb, cause to happen NOT influence).

• than (comparison) vs then (when)

• there (place), their (possessive pronoun), they’re (contraction meaning “they are”)

• it’s and your’s used as possessives, when its and yours are correct (“your’s” is nonsense).

• Heck, there are tons of misused apostrophes—a punctuation mark frequently misused in creating plurals, for heaven’s sake. *sigh*

• to, too, two: these should be obvious

• your vs you’re—oh, heavens. *sigh* “Your” is a possessive pronoun. “You’re” is the equivalent of “you are.”

• “All woks of life”—nah. Too easy.

• write to choose—really? (Writer meant “right to choose”.)

• copywrite used when copyright is meant.

• A biggie: imply vs. infer. A speaker may imply. A hearer may infer. They are two very different processes. Most errors of argument seem to occur when a hearer infers (or pretends to) something not said and then erromeously (or disingenuously) implies (or outright states) that what they inferred is what was said… BTW, that’s also known as a non causa pro causa fallacy of argument. A common use is in straw man arguments: arguing against something not proposed or said.

Well, these are a start: irritating, one and all. (Not, as I have seen and heard, “One in all.”)

Note: yes, I make mistakes. I claim no special training in writing; I have no editors; I am not a professional wordsmith. The examples noted above all come from websites of people who do claim special status as wordsmiths/journalists or from news broadcasts or newspapers where the writer or speaker made more than one such error—or continually repeated the same error—in the same article/newsreading. Irritating to see/hear supposed wordsmiths, especially in “Smartland,” screw up English. And it’s one of the reasons I generally avoid Mass Media Podpeople’s mangling of the “news”—such as it is.

I’ll accept no excuses, lame or otherwise appealing: Lileks Screedblog for yesterday is a MUST READ. There will be a test (you just won’t see it coming… 🙂

A sample, please? OK. But understand, you need the context, and you’ll simply have to read the whole thing to get that.

“Why PBS threatens their intellect.” Whoa! You nailed me there; I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve switched the channel ‘cause I cain’t tell what that dang Miss Marple’s saying. (And why’s she a miss, huh? She wunna dem lesbeens?) It’s possible that one could oppose public funding of PBS because it could survive on its own by appealing to the rich yeasty demographic slice that likes it; it’s possible one could argue that the very idea of state-funded TV is more like, oh, the Soviet Union, the Nazis and Pol Pot’s regime, but I wouldn’t do that. It’s possible that one might wonder if PBS would be beloved by Mr. Schram if it pumped out the O’Reilly Factor 24/7, with occasional station breaks for Marine Band concerts. In that case, one suspects that state-funded TV with mandatory citizen contributions would be a sign of creeping fascism. And one might also note that cable TV has offerings that delight the PBS-inclined viewer, 24/7, and rather than fight for dimes and pennies for PBS, Congress might well use its regulatory power to break up the tier system that keeps people from subscribing only to the smarter channels on cable. These things are possible.

In which I am properly chastened by words from one who is wiser than I…

Would I campaign against changes to California law restricting the right of cities to take property and hand it to private developers? Tooth and nail, war to the knife; but I still do not understand why this is a Federal matter.

“Incorporation of the Bill of Rights” is the justification given. It is clear that the Civil War Ammendments did not intend to incorporate the Bill of Rights into rights to be enforced against the states by the federal courts; they specifically empower Congress to enforce them by appropriate legislation. But Congress doesn’t always act. So when Congress doesn’t act why may the courts do it for them absent an Act of Congress?

And the answer, “Because it is so important, and this needs to be fought by any means necessary” is not a conservative answer. Where in the Constitution does it become a Federal matter? I am prepared to be enlightened on that because I would not at all mind seeing the Feds protecting private property rights (although I doubt they will). So what is the Constitutional issue here? What gives Federal Courts — not Congress, but the Courts — jurisdiction in this case at all? The Incorporation Doctrine has been responsible for a great deal of mischief and in my day Conservatives hated the whole idea. Wouldn’t we be better off if that incorporation were overturned, ended, rescinded, rather than being used by courts to thwart the will of the legislature of Connecticut? If you want protection for private property enforceable by US Marshals, pass an Act of Congress; don’t hand more power to the Courts. They’ll misuse it every time.

Jerry Pournelle nails it pretty well. I have railed often enough about courts creating law ex nihilo and the encroachment of Federal power, often through “incorporation” of Federal Constitutional restrictions and empowerments into State and local government (following after some very bad law issuing out of the so-called “Civil War Amendments”). Why then my outrage at the Supreme Communists of the United States for (irrationally, given their intrusion in other areas) upholding State and local powers in Kelo et al. v. City of New London?

Well, I guess I feel we’re in a Catch-22 situation: as a matter of fact (irrespective of Constitutional justification) the Feds, including the SCOTUS, can and do intrude into State law situations on a daily basis—whenever they wish.

• a puddle on an Iowa farm can be declared “navigable waters” and so a farmer can be jailed by feds for filling it in

• Federal courts can order local schools to do all manner of things abhorrant to the local residents, expensive things that do more harm than good (if any)

• people nationwide can be forced to flush twice (wasting water and still often not getting the “job” done) because some Feeb thinks it important to “save” water with low-flush toilets that don’t work

The list can go on as long as one wants to keep typing. The feebs already exercise, via phony expansion of the commerce clause, the “general welfare” clause and “incorporation of rights” rules far more power than the Founders and framers, in their wisdom, thought healthy for government to exercise.

But when it comes to protecting the bedrock of a democratic republic, provate property owned by citizens, the feebs refuse to meddle as they are happy to do in everything else.

Yes, I agree with Pournelle that this sort of land grabbing is best handled at the State and local level. And I’m pretty sure that such land grab attempts would go fly about as well as a lead balloon in my small town. Still… we live in the world we have. And the world we have is one where our Federal Gummint is far, far too intrusive and unresponsive to Constitutional restraints; where judges legislate from the bench (and legislatures and executives let them, instead of removing them for exceeding their authority); where local and state governments emulate the excessive power of the Federal Gummint.

What, short of Revolution, is the remedy?

Pournelle seems to suggest that more involvement in local politics is an answer—and I’d certainly agree it’s a good place to start. But what to do about the problem of both too much interference by the feebs in what often seems like most local issues and their inconsistent insistence on keeping their hands off in others?

Update (And I, like Randy Barnett said of his book, Restoring the Lost Constitution, would have led with this, had I seen it sooner :-): Justice Thomas, in his dissent on Kelo, said,

“Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.”

Oh? You think? *sigh*

I’ve been largely dissatisfied with Sandra O’Connor’s unpredictable performance in that Conspiracy of Dunces I now call the Supreme Communists of the United States but…

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Was a high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing —
That side was made for you and me!

As I went walking, I saw a sign there;

On the sign it said NO TRESPASSING,

But on the other side it didn’t say nothing–

That side was made for you and me!

My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys
Originally uploaded by mnmus.

You may need a “fat pipe” to view this one… but it’s a good one. I had to wait almost a week before the server on their end wasn’t swamped with requests so I could view this.Turn your speakers on and watch

“My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys”