By “correct”, in this case, I mean: adhering to related sets of rules — ranging from the technical sort that deal with grammar and syntax, to the higher-level rules and techniques regarding presentation, flow, and logic. But, if we want to be truly “correct” in our communication, we need to extend the type of rules we consider relevant to language to yet a higher level, and also consider cultural context, etiquette and relevance. Why? Because we want to be correct merely as a means to be as effective as possible.

The author’s point is an example of how we can do this when we express ourselves. It’s okay for me to use nuanced, niche, or new vocabulary to order to be correct/concise, but I should make sure my audience understands my language.

My point is that we should NOT demand this of others in regular conversation.

Focusing on the “correctness” of others’ words (unless, of course, it is the subject of discussion) lowers your ability to interpret their meaning effectively and makes it more difficult for others to express themselves to you.

When someone speaks, writes, or otherwise expresses themselves, they may do so “incorrectly” — at least, according to your ruleset. Whether the reason is ignorance or use of a different set of rules — it doesn’t matter. Briefly noting a minor mistake can be distracting (but occasionally helpful and worthwhile). But, pointing out infractions against our higher-level rules of communication will derail an entire conversation.

For example: A young girl says to her boyfriend, “I hate you!” The traditional meaning of the word ‘hate’ is very different from what it means in the mouth of a teenage girl — but her mysterious vocabulary is not part of the common knowledge. Her boyfriend would be better off if she spoke in literal terms. But she did not, and he will not benefit from trying to make it so. But he can still be better off, if he interprets correctly. He factors in the context and her body language and understands that she was expressing “You hurt me and I’m upset”.

Another example: I say, “I need a new cell phone”. Someone may want to address what a ‘need’ actually is, a response that could bear biological, philosophical or practical validity — but doing so would completely neglect what I’ve tried to convey.

In an extreme example: a person surprised you by using a racial slur when relaying important information. Instead of getting hung up on the slur and launching into a tangent conversation, it may be best to first address the matter at hand. Hopefully, later you can clarify that the word is offensive, and have a larger conversation about race and bigotry. In reality, most subject matter is not so urgent as to breeze past an inappropriate slur, but we should be able to.

WHOEVER, THE REAL OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF THESE MOVEMENTS (parties) is LIBERTARIANISM. Libertarianism is the only movement that wants to decrease the power of the government, and it wants to decrease mainly the power of the federal government. We need governing and governments, but how much? Obviously government control is not a black and white thing, there is an optimum amount of government and no more or less is favorable to our societies. Based on our present experience the amount of federal power is far beyond optimum, i.e. switching from left to right is not going to help us.

VIVA LIBERTY

This assumes there IS a solution between two parties who have a lock on political power and the broadcast media. When the choice is between a Republican rooting for financial deregulation and a Democrat who begrudgingly allows it, the effect is the same: massive systemic fraud.

The only alternatives are revolution or a grassroots third party that somehow gets on the ballot of all 50 states and somehow raises enough money to pay for the commercials necessary to win a campaign.

Let’s hope for the latter.

Teddy Roosevelt is on Mt Rushmore for a reason: he busted the vice-grip on labor that large corporations had, and no historian would call him a socialist.

I just finished reading the blog about the local collage experiment. I found it really interesting. Can I get the name of the professor who conducted the experiment on his class. Thank you in advance.

Warm Regards,

Jesse Ruffes
Returned Peace Corps Volunteer
Bulgaria, 2009/2011

There are probably other middle-of-the-road common-sense solutions to this type of problem. The Democrat’s ideas tend to be better than Republican ideas in that they only work on paper whereas the Republicans’ ideas don’t even work there. Both sides are more interested in their ideology than finding solutions that actually work.

The underlying premise of most complaints against welfare, seem to stem from the thought that we are paying lazy people to not work and that they are living in relative luxury off the money we pay in taxes. I don’t believe this is true. As I’ve said, there most certainly are people out there who game the system, but those people are guilty of fraud and should be arrested. What sense does it make to say, “Some people are gaming the system, we should get rid of the system.”?

We have all sorts of programs in our country which offer training, support, and education to people who are out of work and are looking to re-enter the work force. Are those programs for the lazy? Should we cut those? Food stamps help thousands of people who would otherwise go hungry, should we let them starve or send them to the local food pantries, many of which already have to turn people away because they don’t have enough donations?

Welfare is a bandage on a wound, it doesn’t solve the underlying problems that lead to poverty, but I don’t think it’s meant to. Poverty is not a problem that can be easily “Solved”. It will take systemic changes to our society if we were to have any chance of success, and even “success” would be unlikely to eradicate all these problems. Even at the best of times, 5% unemployment or higher is considered normal. But even if it doesn’t ultimately solve the problem, it is aiding thousands of people who really need the help, and I’d rather err on the side of helping people even if we unwittingly support a couple of freeloaders. Getting individual people what they actually need is difficult if not impossible to do on anything other than a person-by-person basis, which institutions in general (both government and institutional charities) suck at doing. Given the choice between making sure no one undeserving gets unwarranted aid and making sure that people in actual distress are cared for, I’d chose the latter. Not just because I’m all altruistic and stuff. History shows that any given society is only two or three missed meals away from total collapse, anarchy, and/or revolution.

What are your thoughts to my other question?
My question is, when will welfare start to work? When will welfare recipients start to decline?