Huh? Maybe early onset Alzheimer's here or just sleep apnea? Might be wise to get a good checkup. Researchers have recently discovered that by scanning columns and blogs with a new software, people who have borderline dementia can be spotted and hopefully treated before it is too late.
In fact I just scanned what I have written with it and............OHMYGOSH!!! I've got it too!!!
Are you saying gays are not paying their fair share to help build the state's infrastructure and improve education?
Or are you saying a strong gay commumity is a magnet for high tech?
Or did you mention gay to assure the CCP would publish your colume this week?
Corporate tax rates (what a corporation pays to the state), not personal income, property or auto taxes, is what the article refers to, so this is no slam to poor people. You only made it that way....some people are not happy unless they are mad at someone about nothing.
In my state you have to pay $23 for your drivers license, and all the proof as mentioned. What about homeless people? They don't deserve a vote, because they don't have a home? What if you can't afford the I'd or license fee? Then you don't deserve to vote? The point if this is if you disinfranchise the voters (make it harder) then they simply won't vote! They know us better than we know ourselves! There always doin some kinda testing on black people!
I'm glad to see you're not the One Note Willy we usually get, ranting about how poorly black people have it... though if you were even remotely intellectually consistent you'd have point out that the black community is the MOST intolerant towards gay people. Escaped your wheelhouse, I suppose. They love it when white guilt liberal jerks like yourself compare gay rights with civil rights. Well, I guess we can't all be special. Bet on this, you'll count more black people at a Tea Party rally then this Pride Parade.
Instead you use this as a rant against low taxes? My neighbors from OH, MI, and PA, and NY all cite low taxes and warm weather as their choices to live here. So figure that one out.
Thanks for the liberal fascism. Let us know when the trains are on time.
Murdock's apparent notion that there's such a thing as "objective" or "unbiased" sources of news is silly. News is produced by people. People have biases. There's nothing fundamentally different about Fox News' bias. They're just more upfront about it than, say, the New York Times (I'm not referring to the Times supposed radical leftist bias, but their willingness to function as faithful stenographers for the US government. Just pay attention to how many of their stories-particularly ones about foreign policy-are based on nothing more than the say so of anonymous "government officials").
The most insidious form of bias is the process of story selection, precisely because it's less obvious than Fox's blatant distortions. There's an infinite number of "facts" or stories in the world, and a limited about of print space. For example, if I were writing a newspaper, ever day the headline would read "26,000 children under 5 die of malnutrition and preventable disease". Or "continued inaction on climate change endangers us all, scientists say". It might get boring reading essentially the same stories again and again, but those are the ones I feel are most important in the world, which is a reflection of my own bias. I wouldn't be outright lying about anything, but I would be privileging some facts above others.
As an example, one day last week one of the two (2) stories the Times had about Latin America were about a) the former dictators of Argentina being sentenced to prison, and b) some European tourists are having trouble rock-climbing in a town in Cuba because of bureaucratic silliness. Why did someone feel that the latter was one of the two most important stories to come out of Latin America in the last 24 hours? Well, their own biases, obviously. While the facts may be accurate, I probably never would have published the story, because i just don't consider it to be that important or consequential.
I always come back to George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English language." The things that seem to bother Murdock so much seem pretty petty to me.
"To begin with it [defending the English language] has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a "standard English" which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a 'good prose style.'"
The important thing is clear communication. If using "ain't" or some other word or phrase that drives grammar Nazis mad is the most effective way to get your message across, use it.
Thanks for linking to a video with not a single positive comment on it. #fail
biased music video shoot on "America Street" http://youtu.be/PiPYv4NIOEg
Will, you refer to "the stench of Fox News". Funny how most folks can't smell their own bad breath.
"Even self-professed grammar-sticklers and professional writers make errors like these. "
No, I don't. Partially because I don't misspell very many words, and those that I do misspell are caught by the magical spell-check demons.
Now, as to the notion that there is a generational gap between the youth of today and those who are no longer the youth of today but are themselves the youth of yesterday, or perhaps more accurately the middle-aged of today or the future elderly, there can only be said what has been so often said so many times before and by so many different people that it hardly bears repeating, but without repeating these words of wisdom we might lose sight of what is really at stake in this entire conversation about the ways in which how we communicate are changing, have changed, and likely will change in the future.
If we cannot accept that language changes, then how can we accept any other changes that occur as humanity progresses from our collective yesterday into our collective tomorrow?
That, of course, is not actually the aforementioned words of wisdom about the generations but it is a rather short digression into the nature of history and progress, one which hardly matters to the matter at hand but may become germane in some generic matter later on in this essay. How it will come to be more important is not as large an issue now as it may be later, or may have yet already been. What is important is that it has been placed between one rather long and grammatically correct yet almost completely incoherent sentence and this paragraph, which consists of shorter, yet only slightly less inscrutable sentences which are projecting a sense of academic grandiosity which is hardly borne out by the content.
This, then, is the ultimate paradox of good communication: Often times people have wonderful things to say but fail utterly in their attempts to communicate them. Other times, we must suffer through the most high-sounding and technically perfect writings only to realize that we've been led along a merry chase toward no real grand conclusion. Then again, I'd almost rather read an idiot's well written opinion than a genius's half-assed one.
Oh, and those words of wisdom? Yes, now is the time.
Every generation has complained about the one before and after it. This is the way of the world.
You didn't make an error, you made up a word.
Julia, you are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Even self-professed grammar-sticklers and professional writers make errors like these. Which is why waxing poetic about the good old days is inherently flawed. Poor grammar is not an attribute of the current college-aged generation; it's something you see in people of any age.
Hippocracy?.... I think you meant HYPOCRISY, dear.
A mistake like "historical makers" for "historical markers" is more in the nature of a TYPO, something that came out wrong on the page because your finger or eye accidentally slipped over something that you DO know how to spell.
A spelling mistake like "hippocracy" substituted for "hypocrisy," on the other hand, is an example of simple ignorance.
How embarrassing for you.
Hippocracy...government by hippopotami?
You wrote, "Many of my students demonstrate an indifference to proper grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure...."
You forgot to mention their indifference to history, etiquette and morality.
Yeah but he has an excuse: He's senile.
(So am I).
Will, as a stickler for proper grammar and a graduate from the Communication program at the College of Charleston, I'm appalled at the hippocracy and misguided attempt at admonishment to my generation. I'd like to point out the fact the there are grammatical mistakes in your own article. Firstly, you work for the College of Communication, not "Communications" as you cite in your article. I'd also like bring your attention to the fourth paragraph and the spelling error you made in the sentence referring to "historical makers." Surely, you meant "historical markers?" Please take a look in the reflective glass hung on the wall of your ivory tower and you will see that your own generalization is staring right back.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper