August 10, 2005

Why I never last long in office jobs

This series of email exchanges between a fellow in my office in another department, Mr. X - a lawyer no less - and I is hereby posted for your amusement.  I know I said I wasn't posting again soon but this was just too rich, and already written.  His comments are in italics; mine not.

I am in large part an editor.  Part of my job is editing text that comes out of Mr. X's department.  Technically I don't even believe my decisions are supposed to be questioned by that department.  This all started when I stuck one small comment 4 or 5 times on documents intended to tell our clients whether or not they are eligible to receive state benefits.  The phrase I asked about was that, according to our calculations, the client "may be eligible" to get something.  I didn't know if that meant that we thought our clients were eligible or that they might be.  So I asked a few times where it appeared. "May or might?  It makes a difference." and in one case "May or might issue again - sorry to be a pain."  Simple and polite, seeking clarity.  Right?

Nope!  This was enough to start the email chain:

Email the First, X to me:


yo Chris,

Do you actually see a difference between may & might?

According to http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/034.html , "might can be used...to show diminished possibility (cf. may)"  Thus, as we write in the CCP text, you want us to choose between may & might in such contexts as "may still be eligible for this program" or "a Coordinated Care counselor will determine which of the program’s options you may be eligible for."  What's the significance of the difference to you?

[X]

Email the Second, my response:

 Hello -

I do see a difference.  I don't believe that "might is the past tense of may," (as per your Bartleby reference below) it's not that simple at all.  Cite:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/lc/may.asp

In any event we're talking in the present tense and potential future.  (From a purley formal linguistic standpoint English technically doesn't have tenses as most languages do, but that's the way we usually phrase it, so I'll use the word "tense" in that sentence.)

In the present and future, might means there's potential; something could happen but then again it could not.  So if we tell someone in a factsheet that they might be eligible for something it means we don't know yet.  I'm not sure in context if you do or not; this might (no pun intended) be the right word in context.  And lacking any tone of voice in print it becomes a Rorscach test for the counselor and/or client in terms of whether or not it's worth applying for something.  Depending on how you read it or your outlook you could say "Hey, I might be eligible!" :-)  or "Well, I only might be eligible." :-(   Nothing we can do about the outlook of the users, and might is again fine to use if we don't know yet.

May on the other hand is a statement of permission.  As a present tense statement it's a positive assertion that an authority or situational superior is indeed allowing you to do something.  "You may be eligible" is in effect a roundabout "You are eligible."  Or more likely a misuse of the formal definition of the word when might was intended.  I don't know the exact context which is why I ask.

I realize that most Americans no longer make any distinction between the two in colloquial speech.  But if a client has questions & the counselor is hep to the may/might thing that could make a difference.  I imagine I know this sort of thing from being an ESL teacher (see this exercise for example: http://perso.wanadoo.es/autoenglish/gr.may.p.htm).  There's that Mark Twain quote: "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."

Then again I'm also one of those people who knows & gets persnickety about things like "inflammable" means "is likely to catch fire" and not "can't be burned" and that there isn't really any sense to the new word "irregardless" because "regardless" is what was meant all along.

"Damn kids get off my lawn... when I was your age..."

-
Chris

I thought that settled things; self-depricating prose style, citation of fact, rationale. Case closed.  Right?  Of course not, this is an office job!  My reponse was then forwarded to another employee in X's department, we'll call her Y (biologically ironic, I know...) in case she comes up again.  She is being cc'ed now after all, and might reappear down the email chain.  She chimed in that may was dandy with her and the two of us should start debating the difference between dork and dweeb.  In my defense, I am an editor here, and it's my job to clarify her department's text.

Email the Third, Mr. X strikes back

yo Chris,
Can we agree that one who might be eligible is less likely to be eligible than one who may be eligible?  If so, I think we should always use may.  We can never use will as we can never make conclusive determinations.  And, correctly or not, might sounds too tenuous.  But then again, maybe we should just pepper the fact sheets with variants.  As Thoreau said, "Consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds."
[X]

At least we have an attempt at rationale there, however flawed.  If we really want to argue the fine points of my editing inquiries, let alone decisions, I consider myself well-armed...

Email the Fouth, my second response

Hello again -

> As Thoreau said, "Consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds."

Actually it was Ralph Waldo Emerson, and "A foolish consistency..."  I doubt he had something against fixed meaning in words; that's more Derrida.

> Can we agree that one who might be eligible is less likely to be eligible than one >who may be eligible?

By definition that has to be true, because "may be" means "absolutely is" eligible, and the only condition is the desire of the applicant to receive the benefit.

> If so, I think we should always use may.  We can never use will as we can never >make conclusive determinations.

That's precisely the opposite conclusion I'd reach because "may be eligible" means almost the same thing as "will be."  The only difference is that "will" suggests in the future, but not, for some reason, now.  "May" means absolutely eligible now.

If indeed we're not sure and never want to say we are, the word is "might."

Incidentally, I think you mean "We may never use will as we may never make conclusive determinations.We're certainly capable of it... [wink icon]

> And, correctly or not, might sounds too tenuous.

That's because it means tenuous, and can't be correctly used in another context.  If we are indeed trying to avoid making definitive statements in the factsheets then this is the way to go.  In English in any event; I'd also point out that when this is translated we're talking about using rather specific helper verbs and 'real' tenses in other languages and our word choice here will have direct impact upon that.  Come to think of it that's the decisive reason to use might when might is meant.

If you think I'm being difficult (heck, I'm being an editor [wink] ), check out Orson Welles doing a frozen peas commercial:

http://www.ubu.com/outsiders/365/03-1.html

I close with Lewis Carroll:
----

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.

"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know."

"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter, "Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"

"You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"

"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse who seemed to be talking in his sleep "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"

- Chris

As of this writing people have gone home, there has not been a response and I haven't yet been fired.  It's not so much that people are wrong that bugs me, it's when they hammer away at me for not being wrong.   I may now go home, and I shall

So dude, what's up with the blog?

A near 'perfect storm' of factors has delayed several blog posts I have in my head from being posted.  Don't worry, folks, I'm not suddenly content with the state of the world.  I'm becoming moderately busy at work, my laptop was out of commission for a very annoying reason (I had the precise problem that ultimately got addressed in this thread; and having found that thread at work was able to repair the machine myself) for almost a week, and then a friend borrowed it for a couple of nights.  I'm now housesitting for a week, and haven't taken my machine with me, so my bookmarks and photos etc. are unavailable.  It also appears that in the summer my usual sources for congressional roll calls on votes, a very common topic of my posting as you all know, get a bit slow in forking over the data.  I haven't been able to strike while those irons are hot.  Combine that with the usual Quizzo attendance and such and I've been e-AWOL.

An irony is that I believe I have more hits these past few weeks than any other analagous time period.  Not to fear, I'll be ranting at you again shortly.  I'll post of a few of the photos from Saigon noted the next post down when I return home, likely this weekend or early next week.  We'll also review the sad state of the recent votes on CAFTA, the energy bill, flag-burning amendment etc etc etc ...

Hang tight folks, look at the vicious Korean kids' cute little hate drawings and get back to me early next week...

Will the hand of God strike Japan down? Perhaps so!

I swear if most host countries knew that ESL teachers think the host culture is a hoot and are documenting that with digital cameras, they'd never let us in.

This is a prime example; an English teacher in Korea, noting the hateful school-driven drawings of Korean schoolchildren whose government is in a snit over the ownership of some very small islands (and more likely their associated mineral and fishing rights).  The official propaganda process starts early in the vast majority of nations, and when you're lucky you can get a glimpse of that in a direct fashion such as this which is devoid of cultural ambiguity.  Thus far my favorite was a very similar set of drawings that Vietnamese schoolkids drew of the United States which I saw at the Museum of the American War (formerly the less diplomatic Museum of American War Atrocities, but with the same exhibits) in Saigon.  The bombers were marked USA and the bombs marked BOM.

The Koreans just plain old don't want their kids to like the Japanese.  I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Another brick in my wall of argument that US society, with all of its problems, still ranks in the top 10% of nations in the level of dialog on cultural (mis)understanding.  It sure is a big scary world out there.

For the record, my favorite drawing is the bunny crapping out the major Japanese islands.  Let's face it, that's comedy gold.

July 28, 2005

Look at me, I'm wonderful

... the title of a Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band track.  But you knew that.

City Paper printed my Saddam Hussein letter, minus the final paragraph.  I think I have the formula down now to say what I want for the most part in their letters section:

  • Get my digs in on the paper itself in long referencing sentences (article in question, issue at hand) comprising a short introductory paragraph.  This is difficult to edit out if you construct the sentences with properly dependent clauses.
  • Mix equal parts fact and snark in tight paragraphs in the creamy center of the letter.  Feel free to use metaphor and comparison.
  • Take another independent potshot at the paper's journalistic integrity and ability at the end of the letter.  Although true, this will be edited out.  It's like the lizard yielding its twitching tail; let them take this part, it makes them feel in control.

Feel free to practice this method as frequently as you like.

July 27, 2005

Life imitates joke

You may remember this Clinton-era joke:

President Clinton is arriving back in D.C. after a trip to his home state of Arkansas.He steps out of the plane carrying two pigs, one under each arm.  When he reaches the bottom of the stairs the Marine sharply salutes him as usual. Clinton says: "I'd salute you back son, but as you can see my hands are full."

The Marine replies: "Yes Sir!, mighty fine Pigs sir!"

President Clinton responds:"These aren't just ordinary pigs Marine, they are pure Arkansas Razorback Pigs!!"

The Marine replies: "Yes Sir!, mighty fine Razorbacks Sir!"

The President then responds: "I got this one for Hillary, and this one for Chelsea!"

The Marine replies: "Yes Sir!, Good Trade Sir!".

Ba-dump-bump.

Now for the Real-Life Actual News Item:

Twenty cows, 40 goats for Chelsea Clinton's hand!

True, it's cows and goats and not pigs, but still...

I was offered my choice of daughters (the 13 year old or the 15 year old) in Tunisia on a train between Sfax and Gabes.  Not being Roman Polanski, I decllined.  As a white American with upwards of 28 teeth, it appeared the usual livestock cost was being waived.  Later in the same trip, outside of Douz with a Berber guide in the Great Oriental Erg, I was offered 10 camels by that guide in exchange for an American gal's hand in marriage.  So far as I know this offer still stands.  Said guide had 4 camels for trade on hand and the cash and credit to obtain the remainder.  I'm willing to take the low, low transfer fee of 2 camels in exchange for my services.  Applicants should enjoy the outdoors, sun and sand, and carrying large quantities of water for miles.  Good birthing hips a plus.  Apply to me directly, labelling your email "New Opportunities Dept."

Stopping the energy bill (fat chance but worth a shot)

Mike Ewall, the Green Party of Philadelphia's energy and environmental policy guru (as well as the last person they ran for the 1st District Pennsylvania seat in a non-presidential election year) passed along this urgent message:

--------

** PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY **

             ENERGY BILL ACTION ALERT!
                    7/27/2005

Without exaggeration, the single most environmentally-destructive
national legislation ever -- the Energy Bill -- is close to being approved for
Bush's signature.

Late Monday night, the House-Senate conference committee approved a
final version of the energy bill.  We expect the bill to cruise through the
House very soon, and to come to a vote in the Senate possibly by the end of
this week - despite the fact that most legislators have not even seen the
1,000+ page bill yet!

PLEASE CALL YOUR U.S. SENATOR'S OFFICE IN DC THIS WEEK!!

ASK THEM TO SUPPORT A FILIBUSTER OF THE ENERGY BILL!

FIND YOUR SENATOR'S DC PHONE NUMBER HERE:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
(PICK YOUR STATE AND CALL BOTH OF YOUR U.S. SENATORS)

The Senate should delay their vote until after the August recess, so
they have time to learn what is actually in the bill.

Your message to your Senators is simple:  No taxpayer funding for dirty
energy (nuclear power, coal, oil, etc. -- more ideas below).  Support a
Filibuster of the Energy Bill.  ...and READ the bill before voting on it!

If calling Democratic Senators, tell them that the conference report
(current version of the energy bill) does not meet the criteria that
Sen. Reid laid out for a Democratic Commitment To Energy Independence.

The Energy Bill would:

* increase gasoline prices (according to Bush's own Department of
Energy)
* do nothing to reduce our reliance on oil imports
* do nothing to increase auto fuel efficiency
* do nothing to transition our electricity sector towards clean
renewable energy
* make us more vulnerable to terrorism by building more juicy terrorist
targets (new nuclear reactors and a new gas pipeline from Alaska)
* throw many billions of tax dollars into the nuclear industry
* promote nuclear proliferation by reversing long-standing U.S. policy
against reprocessing waste from commercial nuclear reactors, and using
plutonium to generate commercial energy
* trample state's rights to protect their coasts from liquefied natural
gas
terminals (used so we can go to war for gas as well as oil, now that
we're running out of natural gas in North America)
* inventory the U.S. coastlines for oil and gas, to make way for future
drilling in our coastal waters
* promote building more coal power plants
* provide incentives to cut down our national forests for energy
* create demand for building many more polluting ethanol
"biorefineries"
* subsidize landfills, incinerators and other waste facilities
* support far too many other horrible ideas to name here...

For more information on the energy bill, visit:
http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/

The Democratic Commitment To Energy Independence:
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/press/05/2005516616.html
(Many points that the Democrats say they're committed to... if they're
really committed to them, they should block the energy bill.)

Mike Ewall
Energy Justice Network
215-743-4884
catalyst@actionpa.org
http://www.energyjustice.net
----------

Well, of course they haven't read the legislation; their PAC donors have already told them how to vote.  In fact, an earlier version of the same type of bill, before aligning details with the House, already passed weeks ago 85-12.  That's not the worst of it; only 7 of those 12 were Democrats, the other 5 were Republicans.  That bill encourages heavier investment in ethanol, which has long been proven to use more energy (fossil fuels at that!) to create than it saves.  This is basicially a massive pork subsidy for one powerful corporation, one of the most powerful (some would say evil) in fact, ADM.  The House is more bought out by the oil industry, which likely wants more pork than the Senate was already giving them.  It's Aliens vs. Predators.  Renewables, and - perish the thought! -  reduction of energy use aren't seriously on the table (in fact, the last article linked to there notes that was specifically rejected...).  Not enough money in that for the piggies.

Thus about 1 in 6.5 Democratic senators are willing to even vote against this sort of pork-laden, polluting energy bill, let alone filibuster against it.  I don't see citizen action at this late date doing much on this front, what with this set of folks in office. Clearly no one has been pressured on any front, not by their own parties, not in the popular press and not by voters taking a serious look at alternative choices, to hold their feet to the fire.  But as always I applaud the effort as necessary and, hopefully, um, instructional ... in a "good lord these people are weasels" sort of way.

There is another pervasive silence on the issue from all of the usual Democratic shill groups, as always happens when the overwhelming majority of the elected party officials line up with the Bush agenda against their own voting constituents.  I imagine it becomes necessary for folks like MoveOn (who have nothing about any of this on their website) to remain silent as attempting to motivate their donation base of actual progressives on issues like these would only lead to a healthy, proper cynicism about the party to which MoveOn transfers their money.

Senator Rodham-Clinton's (D-IL/AR/DC/NY) major contribution to energy and environmental policy of late has been supporting tire burns at a New York facility not designed for that purpose, a move so cartoonishly anti-environment ("dirtier than coal") that she's making a neighboring Republican governor look like a champion of the people for opposing the idea.  (You might not have a great deal of success learning this sort of thing via Google...)

Who owns the Democrats?

We don't have the time or space for a complete list, but this excellent article in The American Prospect connects  some of the dots between thd DLC and the Fortune 500.  Read on if you dare.

When push comes to shove, who gets more attention on the Hill when it comes time to vote on privatizing Social Security or passing a wretched energy bill - you and your $50 donation or AT&T and their hundreds of thousands of dollars and power lunches?

The only search engine you need

Tee hee.

July 26, 2005

More on commuter bag searches; all logic out the window

Another update from Flex Your Rights:

Dear Flex Your Rights Supporter:

Having received numerous inquiries regarding the implications of therandom searches being performed on the subway in New York, Flex You rRights hereby presents "The Citizen's Guide to Refusing New York Subway Searches."

While we don't know if the policy will do anything to combat terrorism,we feel it's essential to dispel the dangerous rumor that our 4th Amendment Rights have been entirely repealed. As you'll see in "The Guide" there are some easy ways to protect your rights when traveling on the New York subway.

This policy is constitutionally suspect and unambiguously inconvenient. But for what it's worth, here's a great opportunity to practice a little rights-flexing in a real life police encounter with lots of cameras tomake sure everyone plays fair.

By learning and sharing this information you can help to ensure that this unprecedented event does not further indulge that defeatist attitude towards the 4th Amendment that causes so many Americans to consent to suspicionless searches wherever and whenever they're asked.

Please spread the word! And if you're in NY, pass out our Citizen's Guide to Refusing New York Subway Searches Flyer to subway riders.

===

For their part the media is largely reporting the unofficial repeal of the 4th Amendment as both fait accompli and popular.

This requires some interesting avoidance of fact, such as when an article titled N.Y., N.J. commuters OK with bag searches says precisely the opposite in some of its text:

"Some commuters have called [the ACLU], saying they believed they were stopped because of their race..."

All logic has gone out the window on this one.  Some more quotes:

"I think it's necessary," [commuter Roberta] Nelson, 30, said. "But I agree with a lot of people that it's not going to be a deterrent."

... which means you really think it's completely unnecessary.

We can't seem to work logic into a full sentence, all the way through, as cited right above or in the following, from the same article:

Passengers do not have to submit to the searches, but those who refuse will not be allowed to board.

If you're not allowed on board, guess what?  You're not a passenger.

The ACLU may attempt legal action, but at least they're speaking out:

"If we're going to spend the money, we should spend it on something that's going to stop a terrorist attack, and random searches of 4 to 6 million transit riders between New York and New Jersey is not the way to do it," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Almost all I've received in my inbox from the alphabet soup of other liberal (and 'liberal') mailing lists lately has been Karl Rove-related.  This will not save us, it will not help us.  Nothing about the searches, nothing on the renewal of the PATRIOT Act by the House (before, during or after), nothing (save from Jobs with Justice, as cited below) on CAFTA.  Those were the big, combatable issues of the week, and have been met with a great silence on the "center-left" and through all the byways of Liberalville, following the lead of Democratic House leadership (using the term loosely).

Up in Canada people are taking quite a different approach to the same problem:

"If somebody wants to blow themselves up, there's nothing that anyone can do," Howard Moscoe, chair of the Toronto Transit Commission, says in an exclusive interview with CTV's Question Period, to be broadcast Sunday.

He added that the TTC has been preparing itself for how to respond to the aftermath of a terrorist attack.  "You can react effectively after the fact; it's very difficult to prevent any of this kind of thing from happening," Moscoe says.

Moscoe also says he doesn't want to become involved in the "politics of fear," and believes random searches would play into the hands of terrorists.

Even cranky Canadian right-wingers are against random searches, for a combination of practical reasons and privacy concerns.  And that's in a political culture which doesn't even have a Bill of Rights equivalent.  When did Americans become such sheep?

July 25, 2005

A small thanks to Karl Rove

Can we please end the 'liberal' chorus of voices trying to make some sort of limited, short-term political advantage out of coddling the C.I.A.?  For those who've been living in a cave for the past few weeks, I'm referring to the Plame/Rove/Novak flap.

Best excerpt:

While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennigs & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. ...  A $1000 donation was made to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign on April 22, 1999 under the citation "Ms. Wilson, Valerie E. of Washington, DC 20007, President of Brewster-Jennings & Assoc."

Heh.

Seems you can't swing a cat the past few weeks without hitting a Democrat who wants the White House to work extra hard to keep the identities of C.I.A. agents secret.  I'm not in this camp.  By all means, let's expose the bastards.  America needs to have an honest foreign policy run by elected officials, not a national security state run by the cloak-and-dagger types with black budgets and zero regard for democratic process.

Blowing Valerie Plame's cover?  Totally cool.  It's a small accidental gift of honesty from the federal government.  Let the rats rat each other out.  If Rove starts doing it on a mass scale for altruistic reasons instead of his short-term advantage I'd almost even start to like him.

Popular joke: What do you call ten dead lawyers?

A: A good start.

Q: What do you call one exposed C.I.A. operative?

A: Another good start.

Never forget:

"From 1945 to the end of the [20th] century, the USA attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process,the USA caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair." - William Blum, writing in Rogue State       

The CIA of course, played an integral role in all of these bloody coups. In 1949 the CIA successfully helped to change the government in Syria, as well as in Greece that same year. They did the same in Cuba in 1952 and Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, South Vietnam in 1955, Haiti in 1957, Laos in 1958, South Korea and Ecuador in 1960, the Dominican Republic and Honduras in 1963, Brazil and Bolivia in 1964, Zaire in 1965, Ghana in 1966, Cambodia in 1970, El Salvador in 1972, Chile in 1973, South Korea in 1979, Liberia in 1980, Chad in 1982, Grenada in 1983, Fiji in 1987, Venezuela in 2002 and Haiti in 2004. And this only represents a list of "successful" US interventions. Many others have failed. Let us not overlook what the CIA has done here in the United States under the guise of "national security."

Well, what have they done here?  They set up domestic psy-ops to influence public opinion.  They lie to us, with our moneyThey lie to us to get us to support policies that well-informed, unfrightened people would never condone.  What they do in our names and how much it costs remains hidden from us even decades after the fact.

CIA operatives plant news stories to confuse public opinion and distort fact.  They engage in espionage and sabotage, physical and psychological.  They are not on "our" side.

And the 'liberal' press, MoveOn and Congressional Democrats want to establish this standard as a sacrosanct area of enforced secrecy, an important national tradition we need to maintain?  Why?  For the alleged short-term political advantage of having an elected lame-duck president technically fire one advisor he can still just call up and ask advice anyway?  Why anyone interested in a better world still takes these people seriously is well beyond me.