Will Blog for Food

Obama Boxed In On Afghanistan

Obama is boxed in by his own rhetoric on Afghanistan. While running for President, in order to look tough while condemning Bush's war in Iraq, Obama made comments to the effect that Afghanistan is the real war we should be fighting because that's where al Quaeda is located. So it would be precipitous for him just to pull out now. He would look weak, the last thing any Democratic President needs. There may be legitimate reasons for keeping a miltary prescence on the ground in Afghanistan, but for the most part they escape me. They seem to boil down to "al Quaeda might come back." Well, yeah, and then again they might not. They may go elsewhere like to Somalia, for example. Is it worth sending young people into harm's way on a "maybe"?

I think, as much as I hate to say it, that Obama's decision to send more troops is all about political calculations. First, Obama is turning out to be an avowed centrist. He doesn't want to do anything too radical at least during his first few months in office. Leaving Afghanistan abruptly at this time would be too radical. There is too much on his plate here at home to have to deal with a firestorm from the right about leaving Afghnaistan abruptly. He would like to get health care passed. He would like to do something about jobs. Better to let Afghanistan remain at the status quo than to have to deal with another firestorm from the right, another distraction from his main goals. And it would give Republicans additional ammunition in the upcoming congressional elections of 2010. Better to neutralize that by remaining in Afghanistan, and there is always the possibility that something can be improved there, but I doubt it.

Besides he can always pull a Nixon, declare victory and pull out of Afghanistan just before the 2012 election. At that point Obama will look pretty good if 1) a substantial health care bill has been passed, 2) the job situation has substantially improved and 3) he has just completed a successful war in Afghanistan. Why not pull a Nixon and use the ending of the war as a tool to get reelected? Nixon promised to end the Vietnam war, he hinted that he and Kissinger had a "secret plan," but conveniently let it drag on until just before the next election which Nixon won handily only to be tripped up by Watergate a few months later. This sounds cynical, I know, and in Nixon's case the cynicism is certainly justified. But Obama cannot survive in office without making political calculations as well, particularly when that's all the other side is doing. If the Republicans ever do anything except from political calculations, it will be news to me.

Obama has already set the groundwork for withdrawl from Afghanistan with his announced exit strategy which gives McChrystal 15 months to get things done or else. That would put us into mid 2011 just a few months before Obama would be revving up his reelection campaign. How convenient! My prediction is that he will declare victory at that time and pull out. Better to have the firestorm from the right then as part of a referendum on his reelection campaign than to have it as another distraction now. Besides ending the war then will leave the Republicans - if they should replace him in 2012 - without an ongoing war which they would dearly love to inherit from him. If Obama wins in 2012, it leaves him with a clean slate for his second term during which he can take a more radical stance on a number of issues since he won't ever have to deal with another election campaign. At that point he would have a shot at making a major change in the Weltanschauung or zeitgeist of the country, the way Reagan did, but in the opposite direction. 

So there are many advantages from Obama's perspective for continuing the war in Afghanistan at this time both geopolitical and political. Of course, all calculations of this sort can turn out to have been unfounded. Things can go awry. The war, as wars are accustomed to do, could turn dirtier and messier. The economy could get worse instead of better making the expenditures in Afghanistan seem like an even bigger waste of money than they already are. Obama could end up being boxed in by reality and not merely by his own rhetoric.

You Guys

The second person plural personal pronoun has always been a problem in the English language simply because officially it's the same as the second person singular personal pronoun - you. Most people use the word "you" to refer to another person, but the use of "you" to refer to a group of people has long gone by the wayside. Instead, most people use "you guys" to refer to a group of people. The problems with this is that "you guys" borders on the vulgar. I'm sure the first group of blue-haired old ladies who were approached by their waiter with the greeting - "How are you guys doing today?" - cringed. My mother, who was an English teacher is, I'm sure, turning over in her grave every time someone says "you guys" to refer to a group of people.

The word "guy" originated with a man by the name of Guy Fawkes who was part of a plot to kill King James and blow up both Houses of Parliament. The plot was detected, however, and Guy Fawkes was executed for treason. Guy Fawkes's failure is remembered with Guy Fawkes Night on November 5.

There has always been a tendency to pluralize the word "you." I think the Southerners had it right when they referred to a group as "you all." It makes a lot of sense and isn't vulgar. I think everyone should adopt this, and we should make it an official part of the English language that the correct second person plural personal pronoun is "you all."

There have been other attempts to come up with a second person plural personal pronoun such as the Bronx version: "Youse." This makes some sense too as usually the plural of a word is formed by adding an "s." However, "youse" is considered very vulgar while "you all" is quite stylish, I think.

The whole "you guys" thing culminated for me when I attended a wedding recently at which the minister repeatedly refered to the bride and groom as "you guys." I thought, "How gross!" Surely, we can do better than that as a language.

I'm not the only one having this conundrum. Dr. Carol J. Burger, Associate Professor at Virginia Tech has this to say:

The correct usage in Chicago [where I grew up] is "youse guys."  Try as I might, I cannot seem to eradicate this term from my vocabulary. Since I have been in the South for over 25 years, I have tried to substitute "y'all" but in times of crisis [like at the end of class when I'm trying to remind the students of an assignment], youse guys always slips out.   Maybe some aversion therapy with electroshock would be useful..........?

Julie Armstrong agrees with me:

I nominate "y'all" as a perfect feminist solution to two problems: the English language's lack of a plural "you," and the related issue of trying to create a plural "you" using gender-specific words like "you guys." Or worse, "gals" and "girls." Southerners out there who want to retain their distinctiveness from the Yankee hordes who might soon defect to our linguistic side can always retain rights to my favorite bit of inclusive terminology: "all y'all."

The American Heritage Dictionary shed the most light on the subject:

The single most famous feature of Southern United States dialects is the pronoun y'all, sometimes heard in its variant you-all. You-all functions with perfect grammatical regularity as a second person plural pronoun, taking its own possessive you-all's (or less frequently, your-all's, where both parts of the word are inflected for possession): You-all's voices sound alike. Southerners do not, as is sometimes believed, use you-all or y'all for both singular and plural you. A single person may only be addressed as you-all if the speaker implies in the reference other persons not present: Did you-all [you and others] have dinner yet? You and you-all preserve the singular/plural distinction that English used to have in thou and ye, the subject forms of singular and plural you, respectively (thee and you were the singular and plural object forms). The distinction between singular thou/thee and plural ye/you began to blur as early as the 13th century, when the plural form was often used for the singular in formal contexts or to indicate politeness, much as the French use tu for singular and familiar “you,” and vous for both plural and polite singular “you.” In English, the object form you gradually came to be used in subject position as well, so that the four forms thou, thee, ye, and you collapsed into one form, you. Thou and thee were quite rare in educated speech in the 16th century, and they disappeared completely from standard English in the 18th. However, the distinction between singular and plural you is just as useful as that between other singular and plural pronoun forms, such as I and we. In addition to y'all, other forms for plural you include you-uns, youse, and you guys or youse guys. Youse is common in vernacular varieties in the Northeast, particularly in large cities such as New York and Boston, and is also common in Irish English. You-uns is found in western Pennsylvania and in the Appalachians and probably reflects the Scotch-Irish roots of many European settlers to these regions. You guys and youse guys appear to be newer innovations than the other dialectal forms of plural you. See Note at you-uns.

Evidently, we have a subconscious need to pluralize the word "you." However, "you guys" is not used in England (except by Tony Blair) as it's considered too American. They prefer "fellow," "bloke," or "chap." Since we've lost the old forms of English in which there was a distinction between the singular and plural forms of "you," we've been wandering in the wilderness searching for a plural form of "you" with the result that we don't have a polite form of you plural but only an informal form verging on the vulgar: "you guys."

The Case for Ain't

The word “ain’t” has all but been eliminated from the English language. Why? Not because of legions of English teachers and grammarians who demonized the word, but because of myriad TV producers who banned it from television. However, looked at dispassionately and rationally, “ain’t” is a useful word, the banning of which has left a gap in the English language which no one has noticed but me, so I gather. It goes to show that people will take whatever arbitrary conventions are dispensed from above as Gospel, never questioning their arbitrariness or the fact that they are merely conventions. Let’s conjugate the negative of the verb “to be.”

I am not

You are not

He, she or it is not

We are not

You (plural) are not

They are not

Now let’s do the same thing (Hey, conjugation is fun) with the contraction of the verb “to be” and “not.”

I am not

You aren’t

He, she or it isn’t

We aren’t

You (plural) aren’t

They aren’t

There you see there IS no contraction for “am not,” thanks to the aforementioned legions of English teachers and grammarians who have eliminated a perfectly good word with a perfectly reasonable function from the English language for totally arbitrary reasons. “I ain’t” is the natural contraction for the verb “to be” in the first person singular. Ta Da. Every other person singular and plural has a contraction of “to be” and “not.” Why not the first person singular? It just doesn’t make any sense. Of course, ain’t could be used ungrammatically such as the vulgar “He ain’t,” “They ain’t,” “You ain’t” etc., but used correctly, it serves a very useful function. Apologists for English teachers will say that, since there were so many people using “ain’t” incorrectly, it had to be eliminated altogether and not having a contraction for “am” and “not” is a small price to pay for getting rid of a plethora of vulgar English and blah, blah, blah. I say Phooey; this never stopped English teachers before. They would drill correct grammar into their students’ heads no matter how much of an arbitrary convention it represented. Well, enough said, but, by the way, did you know that spelling is totally arbitrary as well. The guy who wrote the first dictionary, Samuel Johnson, in 1776, just decided arbitrarily how words were to be spelled and everybody has had to kow-tow to the dictionary ever since. “Night,” for instance, could just as well have been spelled “nite.” But this is another subject altogether, and I don’t have time to go into it right (rite) now. I ain’t gonna bite off more than I can chew.

The following is from Wikipedia:

Ain't would solve one logical problem of English grammar ; it would serve as a useful contracted inverted form in the question "Ain't I?" Many prescriptivists prefer "Aren't I" in this situation; this is illogical in conjugation (the Hiberno-English form Amn't I? follows other patterns), and for speakers of non-rhotic accents may only be a baroque spelling of one possible pronunciation of the eighteenth century an't. Ain't is also obligatory in some fixed phrases, such as "Say it ain't so". Ain't may also be mandatory if one accepts African-American vernacular English (AAVE) as an alternative set of grammatical norms. In AAVE, ain't is used as a substitute for didn't in certain past tenses. Thus, one would say "she ain't called me" for "she hasn't called me". Ain't is also found to be a stereotyped word for most peoples from the South-Eastern states of America, and is commonly used in most casual conversational settings. Most usage writers continue to condemn the word. The related word hain't is an archaic and very nonstandard contraction meaning has not or have not. It can be found in literature, particularly in Mark Twain's stories such as The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.

Qualcomm: What's in a Name?

Qualcomm is a San Diego based corporation that does very fine work in the cell phone world. It's a Fortune 500 company, and I'm sure they have a lot of very smart people running the company and a lot of very fine  people working there. Their record of quarterly profits is admirable; so much so that they find themselves in the enviable position, quite often, of having to pooh-pooh their own profit reports something like this. "Well, even though we exceeded Wall Street analysts' expectations this quarter, don't expect us to keep this up. We'll probably do really lousy next quarter!" This is called lowering expectations. If the analysts got really excited and expected Qualcomm to do great things in the next quarter and then they fell short, that would be really bad for their stock. People would probably dump it if it didn't live up to expectations, and that would be really, really bad!

However, I have a problem with 'Qualcomm,' the name. It's just too obvious: Quality Communications.  Duhhh! How banal! How mundane! It's also a little too long. Too many m's. It's obvious they didn't have a naming expert like me come up with that one! Actually, Qualco would have been better. Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." True, but actually there's a lot in a name. Certain sounds and certain words or word fragments connote certain things either pleasant or not so pleasant. Consider the words 'smegma' and 'maggot. Would you want a rose called by either of these names? "Oh, come here, Honey, and smell this wonderful smegma." How poetic!

Instead,  Qualcomm should have hired me to come up with a name that connoted pleasant associations having to do with their primary field of interest: cell phones. How about this: Celerity Corporation? The dictionary definition of celerity is rapidity of motion or action." It connotes speed, a very cool thing in any name, and cell phones - Cell-erity. Or it could even be called the Cellerity Corporation Even better. Also variations on this theme would work such as Celeritas Corporation or Cellarium Corporation with connotations of solarium as well. Solarium connotes the sun, always a good connotation. How about Celereal or Cellereal? A little too much like cereal, maybe.

Taking a different tack, consider the word 'accelerate,' related to celerity to be sure. How about the Accell Corporation? Unfortunately, other entities have seen the beauty in these names and taken them for their own operations, but they don't include major corporations. I'm sure Qualcomm could have had them if they wanted. Here's another one: Cellebrium. This connotes something really brainy as well as cell phones. However, it sounds a little like a drug or a cereal. Then there's variations on the word 'cerebral.'  Celebreal Corporation. Sounds a bit mysterious. That's OK. Or take variations on the word 'alacrity.' Alacrity means "promptness of response, cheerful readiness." What could be better than that? How about Cellacrity Corporation?

Intel knew what they were doing when they came up with the name "celeron" for one of their chips. It connotes speed, the very thing they would like their chip to be noted for. There are some companies whose names have nothing to do with their product line like the Cubic Corporation in San Diego. Then there's even a copycat Conic Corporation. There's no Spheric Corporation or Tetrahedronic or Octagonic Corporation. Why?? By the way, Cellonics would be a good name. Carrying this a bit further, how about the name Cellineal Corporation? Cellanial Corporation connotes the word cranial which connotes brainy which is good although there is a slight connotation of 'anal' which is bad. How about Cellubrious? Not bad. Close to salubrious from the Latin - healthy, safe - and meaning "promoting health and well-being." A perfect connotation.

I could go on and on. But there's no need to. They're stuck with the name 'Qualcomm.' They're never going to change it. And we're stuck with Qualcomm Stadium since they gave $17 million to the city of San Diego for the naming rights. How dreadful! Look at all the stadia that are named after corporations with dreadful names! We have here in San Diego the IPayOne Sports Arena. I Pay One!! It shouldn't be allowed. How disgusting and vulgar! How trite! It's a travesty of the English language, it is. And then the problems with Enron Stadium. They've finally renamed it Minute Maid Field! Finally, we have (in other parts of the country) Alltel Stadium, Bank of America Stadium, Invesco Field, Heinz Field, Lincoln Financial Field, Quest Field and FedEx Field. What next? Wal-Mart Stadium? Even Kick Ass Field would be better than these corporate names. How about Trash Talk Stadium or UpUrButt Field? Oh well. There's nothing I can do about it. Money talks, and if some city wants to name their stadium after the Smegma Corporation, there's nothing I can do about it!