Grammar Goody #3--It looks wrong, but it's right

I usually like to insist that most grammar and punctuation rules make sense, but this one I must admit just plain makes no sense at all. This is one of those things you just have to learn and remember.

Periods and commas go inside the close quotation marks. 

So, instead of
"Stop", he said as he went about his business  (which looks right)

It must be

"Stop," he said as he went about his business. 

AND

According to Jon Stewart, "this rally to restore sanity will be huge." [period, then close quotation mark]

Grammar Goody #2-- It's confusing knowing which its it is...

We all learned about apostrophe usage in high school: you remember--Susan's dog ate Marthat's homework--that sort of thing.

So, it would be logical (but incorrect) to think that the possessive form of it would be it's. But it's not correct.

OK, let's get to the point (note the let's in that sentence--the apostrophe is NOT representing possession, but something that's missing--the "u" in let us).

So, here's the deal:

An apostrophe represents both possession (as in Martha's homework) AND a place where there's a letter or two missing--as in there's: the i missing when there and is are combined to form there's. 

So, in order to show in the contraction of it is (it's), some grammarian somewhere more interested in confusing people trying to learn English than in any sort of consistency, came up with this rule:

It's is not possessive but is the contraction of it is.

That means that It's = It is. 

And its means the possessive form.

Confused yet?

This might make it easier: Just remember this:

It's hard to fathom, but I understand its logic (I think). 

Grammar Goody #1: The Most Common Young Writer's Mistake

Believe it or not, this is the most common error I see made: pronoun usage.

I'll see a sentence like this:

Each student should be responsible for their words. [their is the pronoun]

In spoken English, this is quite common (not correct, but common). Unfortunately, it's also become common in students' writing as well--probably because it's so common in spoken English.

But it's still not right.

Here's how it must be: (there's really no wiggle room on this):

Each student should be responsible for his or her actions.

Now, I'll agree that seems awkward (because it is), so here's my suggestion. Instead of writing the "his or her" thing, rewrite the sentence to make the subject plural. That way your pronoun needs to be plural too.

So, our new sentence would be:

Students should be responsible for their actions.

Simple!

Someday we may adopt "their" as the universal pronoun for both singular and plural--and that might not be a bad idea--but until then, watch your singular and plural pronouns.

New blog posts coming on your favorite subject: GRAMMAR! No,don't run away!

It has occurred to me over the last seven years of teaching at both UNCWilmington and at UAlbany that students are not learning grammar, punctuation, and writing style as they did when I was in high school. Here's an example of what I mean: many of you, reading that last statement--after rolling your eyes--thought to yourselves, she goofed--she should have capitalized high school. Many students today do just that. They'll write something like, "after I graduated High School, I went to..."

Unfortunately, there are two problems with that. High school, used generically, is not a name--not a proper noun--and therefore is not capitalized.

What's a proper noun, you  say? That's exactly the type of information I'm going to start doling out on a daily basis.

Over the years, I've collected a slew of common mistakes. It's obvious that since I see the same mistakes year after year, class after class, these tidbits were not passed along to you earlier in your education as they were to me, lo those many years ago... It's those commonly made mistakes that I'll be addressing.

So, now I know you just can't wait to check back every day to see what the tip of the day is going to be, BUT hear me out! If you do, I guarantee that you will be happier when you sit down to write, your writing will be better,  your essay grades will go up and you'll get the job of your dreams. Well, I've clearly gone too far on that last one, but you get the point.

And think of it this way, if you learn and then focus on ONE grammar tip per day, it will be relatively painless...and you'll get the job of your dreams....drat, I did it again.

So come back tomorrow for the inaugural grammar goody.

Unrestricted Campaign Contributions and Watergate: There is a Connection

If you're wondering why there are so many campaign ads this midterm election and why so many of them are attack ads, and why most of them are attacking incumbent Democrats, look no further than last spring's Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case. That decision, on First Amendment grounds, allowed unlimited anonymous donations to private groups who in turn are unlimited in their campaign spending.

But what that decision does is to make legal what used to be illegal and which earned people trials and convictions during the Watergate years. Read on to learn more:

"Return of the Secret Donors," New York Times

I truly did not intend for my last post to relate to today's, but I'm afraid that they necessarily do. Yesterday, the administration sought legislation that will enable the government's intelligence gathering services to tap internet communications the same way that they are able to tap phone conversations--by warrant, a protection for innocent Americans. What is your opinion about this? It seems perfectly reasonable, as the government argues, that new abilities to communicate require new extensions of warrantable wiretapping. On the other hand, the FBI has not always to conducted itself according to its mandates and regulations. Your thoughts?
For more, see yesterday's New York Times article:

U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

Report Shows FBI Sometimes Slips Back Into J Edgar Hoover Style of Investigation

A new report shows that the FBI has illegally surveilled peaceful, non-terrorist protest in violation of its orders. It should only surveil legal First Amendment activity, like peaceful demonstrations, if it suspects criminal or terrorist activity, but the report shows some slip-ups. This serves as a good example of why governmental agencies need oversight for our protections. Here's the New York Times editorial that brought the report to my attention:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/opinion/27mon2.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

Obama and Jimmy Carter: is there a parallel?

Walter Mondale, Carter's vp from 1977 to 1980 and presidential candidate in 1980, sees a distinct parallel between the hellish difficulties faced by the Carter administration in the late '70s and the seemingly equally hellish difficulties facing the Obama administration today.

Here's a very short article from The New Yorker magazine:

"CENSORED" Label Removed by Craigslist

In yet another twist to the Craigslist "censorship" story, the site has removed the Censored label that it had slapped on its shut-down "Adult Services" section.
See today's NY Times.

Still no word from Craigslist officials about why they responded to the state attorneys general by taking the list down, why they slapped the label on a few days ago, or why they have now taken it down. Stay tuned: this surely is not the end of this story!

Craigslist Censorship?

The latest "censorship" flap concerns Craigslist's adult services category. Recently, apparently in response to some state attorneys general who were concerned that the service was promoting prostitution and child abuse, Craigslist took down its adult services section, slapping a Censored label where it used to be.

 Craigslist executives refuse to discuss this situation but lots of other people are:
The Wall Street Journal
The Huffington Post
The New York Times
The Electronic Frontier Foundation

Many of the reporters and commentators seem to be focused on why Craigslist has taken this action and whether it will continue, but no one seems to be questioning the use of the term "censorship" to describe Craigslist. Just because their management chose to put the word "Censored" above, does that necessarily make it so? Is this really censorship? What does that word mean, anyway? I have written two books arguing that the word is overused and has come to be almost meaningless.

So, is this censorship or is it state legal authorities trying to influence a private business (which could be called many things, not necessarily censorship)?

A new First Amendment claim....prison diet violates the free exercise of religion clause

Oh yes, you read that heading correctly. Click here and read on:
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/08/convicted-terrorists-demand-for-highfiber-diet-is-rejected.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LoweringTheBar+%28Lowering+the+Bar%29&utm_content=Google+Reader http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/08/convicted-terrorists-demand-for-highfiber-diet-is-rejected.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LoweringTheBar+%28Lowering+the+Bar%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Nixon Library and Watergate Exhibit

It seems there's another historical exhibit flap brewing. Back in 1994, a Smithsonian exhibit on the Hiroshima bombing was canceled over protests that its content was one-sided. For a marvelous website related to the controversy, click here: http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/enola/.
Today, there is a similar controversy brewing over a planned National Archives-curated exhibit about Watergate planned for the Nixon presidential library in California. Here is a story from the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012565135_watergate08.html
And here is an editorial from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/opinion/21sat4.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y.
This is an important question for anyone interested in history and our national story. It is nothing less than the momentous decision of who gets to tell the story that the public will see and remember. Will it be private citizens and pressure groups or will it be professionals trying to objectively present evidence or will it be some combination thereof? I invite you to consider this story and then think about what we know about our national past and where that information has come from....

A New Academic Year and news to report on the legal profession

Welcome back from summer! It's been very hot here in North Carolina and I am looking forward to some cooling breezes in Albany, NY. Thinking ahead about my Constitutional history course this fall, I will begin posting articles and information related to the Supreme Court and state legal issues. Thinking ahead to my Law and Lawyers course in the spring, I will also be casting about for news about the legal profession.

Here's a story in today's (August 20) New York Times (note the italicized title: historians always italicize titles of books, newspapers, magazines, movies, and plays) about how the recession has changed the ideas of some young lawyers. Much as happened in the 1960s and 70s, some young lawyers today are rethinking the whole corporate-law gig and opting for public sector law instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/us/20defer.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

Should we stretch the limits of corporate product liability?

As we were discussing in yesterday's Law and Lawyers class, product liability cases  have grown since Melvin Belli and the American Trial Lawyers Association began demanding the "adequate award" in the 1950s, and absent another system of personal injury compensation, trial lawyers and juries have largely determined how much people will be paid for loss of life or limb because of another's negligence. Here is the story of two heart surgeons who want the limits of who is liable for medical device failures stretched from the corporation that manufactures them to the executives who run the companies. Read on for more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/business/21device.html?pagewanted=2&tntemail0=y&emc=tnt

It's Still a Majority-White Legal Profession Out There

While gender imbalances in the legal profession have been radically improved over the last half century, racial imbalance has not. This story details a study done by a Columbia Law School professor who wanted to see if the perception that African-Americans are not improving their representation in the profession is true. He found that both the numbers and the proportion of African-Americans admitted to law schools have declined since 1993. He can't explain it, but he does have a theory about why:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/education/07law.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/education/07law.html

Law School Clinics Facing Backlash

Here is an article of interest to anyone thinking about attending law school someday. One of the benefits of a good law school education is the opportunity to gain real-life courtroom experience by working in a  school-funded law clinic. Read this NY Times article to see how the activities of some law school clinics are being questioned by lawmakers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/us/04lawschool.html

Should state lawmakers remove funding from state law school clinics if they attack large corporations?

Nullification, interposition, whatever you call it, it's back---again

Here's a good overview of the history of the idea of nullification in the U.S. Not something relegated to the pages of your history text, this doctrine, discredited as it was by the Civil War, is alive and well today in some states of the nation. Read the full story by clicking below:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-essence-anarchy?page=0,0http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-essence-anarchy?page=0,0

Then leave your thoughts and comments, please.

The Cravath system of law firm hiring and promotion may be on its way out!

Here's an interesting story from today's NYTimes about new ways law firms are structuring their hiring and promotion plans. The Cravath system instituted at the turn of the twentieth century seems to be headed for extinction.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01LEGAL.html?tntemail0=y&emc=tnt&pagewanted=all

It's of some serious concern that because of the economy, law firms are now beginning to hire two or three tiers of new lawyers--some obviously (as George Orwell would say) more equal than others. 

But, we should also consider this: how often does a business model, like the Cravath system, last nearly 100 years?

History research needs to be checked and double-checked!

Here's a link to a NY Times story about a new book on the Hiroshima bombing which has some of its facts quite messed up. Read the story. It's a great lesson to all of us who write history that facts need to be checked with at least two sources (or if that's not possible, at least reported to the reader as unverifiable). As you'll see when you read the story, the author took one person's word for what happened and apparently did not check any other sources for verification.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/books/21hiroshima.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

Memoir of a death penalty lawyer

This review, from today's New York Times, talks about a new memoir written by a death penalty lawyer. For anyone interested in the death penalty today, this would be a good place to start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/books/review/Lithwick-t.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/books/review/Lithwick-t.html