More on language ( re: grab it)

Posted by on

An online petition calling on Italians to stop using English words for which there are equivalents in their own language gathered nearly 70,000 signatures before it was closed. The petition was called Dillo in Italiano or “Say it in Italian”, and was backed by the Accademia della Crusca, a language institute founded in Florence in 1583. Italians should not squander the “history, culture and beauty of our language”, said the campaigners, who highlighted the growing use of clumsy hybrid terms such as “footing” (jogging), “baby parking” (crèche) and “mister” (football coach). The issue seems to be one of mounting concern: the Italian navy recently caused outrage by using the English slogan “Be cool and join the navy” on a recruitment poster, while the government ran into trouble for referring to a piece of legislation as “the jobs act” rather than “la legge sul lavoro”. (The Week)

Italian is a beautiful language. English is, too, but why further undermine your own wonderful and ancient culture by using these silly expressions. The British use the word “creche” (which is French); now the Italians use “baby parking”. Kiddies produced by Toyota?

English has always adopted foreign words since the days of the Romans; it is expected. But the Italians have done this less. Their way of life is already under seige by a huge influx of people. Were I Italian I would protest these pseudo-English importations, too.

Grab it!

Posted by on

Over the centuries I’m sure that what is acceptable and unacceptable to say has changed numerous times, and new modes of speech have been frowned upon or excoriated by older generation after older generation. So I am willing to accept that I sound a fuddy-duddy, or even an elitist (ouch!).

But one expression makes me cringe: “Grab it”. This phrase crops up all over the place, especially in advertisements: “Great pizza – grab it! (and enjoy greater sex,presumably).
I suppose “grab it” is intended to get impulsive people motivated to scamper off and buy pizza, or whatever, before anyone else can buy it. But to me it is vulgar. What it actually means is to snatch the product out of the hands of shop assistants, servers etc, without so much as a “thank you” or an “if you please”. This discourtesy is a further sign of the decline in manners. Many people couldn’t care less about the feelings of others; but so much the worse for them. Epicurus never used the word “courtesy”, but had he spoken English he would have agreed with me. “Buy it now” or “Order now!” has served us well enough for a Century. Dump “grabbit!”

Trickle up!

Posted by on

Republicans, unbelievably, are once again forcing trickle-down economics on the United States, despite the idea being almost unanimously derided by reputable economists and financiers. It’s almost as if Republicans are unaware that the latest experiment in trickle-down has practically bankrupted the state of Kansas and has done little or nothing for North Carolina. They can’t leave this bogus ideology alone.

What does work economically is to put cash into the hands of the poor and not-so-poor, because they immediately go out and spend it, either on better health insurance, a real holiday, new clothes or something better than fast food. The bouncy resulting profits still eventually accrue to the donors Republican Congressmen adore so much in the form of dividends – it just takes a little more time to filter through. In the meantime poorer people have bigger incomes and, very importantly, feel better about the world, are not so resentful or prone to extremes, and even more tolerant of immigrants. But somehow the Republican politicians have an ideological aversion to the poor and middle class. They yatter on about the latter, but seem to secretly despise them as “losers”.

What is wanted now is not trickle down policies but the quickest and best way of fixing the country economically and helping the less fortunate at the same time: TRICKLE-UP economics.
Will we get it? Not until the issue of money in politics is corrected.

Is running a university worth such huge salaries?

Posted by on

To The Times

From Louise Richardson’s complaint that her salary as Vice Chancellor of Oxford (£350,000 a year) is not in the same league as footballers and bankers, to the yacht-owning George Holmes at Bolton (£222,120 a year and a £1m loan to buy a house) saying he is underpaid compared with top US institutions, our university leaders have continually embarrassed the education sector with the arrangements for their pay. In the past five years, Vice Chancellors have enjoyed an average pay increase of 22%, despite pleading poverty every time it came to staff pay. More than two-thirds of VCs either sit on the committee that sets their pay or can attend its meetings. It is time to lift the lid on these secretive university remuneration committees, irrespective of how much charity work VCs may do. (An edited version of a letter from Sally Hunt, general secretary, University and College Union).

Young people are incurring sizeable debt in order to go to university, only to be taught, in many cases, by graduate lecturers who are paid a pittance. Some don’t encounter a proper professor face to face in the three (or four) years they are at the institution. The increase in the number of people going into further education has happened at a time when government has adopted a hands-off policy to funding, and the administrators have taken advantage of it all to pad their salaries, getting up to little tricks like accepting full-paying Chinese students at the expense of British citizens, or so it seems.

Justified criticism or no it is time to reform university administration and restore more realistic incomes and better teaching and services for those who pay – that is, the students. After all, universities and colleges are non-profit organizations, not tax-payimg corporations. If they have the cash to pay six figure salaries they should be paying tax. And I will refrain from commenting on the tired old cliche along the lines “my salary doesn’t match American pay”. I had this all the time at business school, where one was told that high top management salaries reflected the need to recruit the best people world-wide. Self-serving nonsense.

Minimum alcohol prices

Posted by on

There’s absolutely no denying that the UK has an alcohol problem. The rates of binge drinking are amongst the world’s highest. A far higher proportion of Brits are addicted to alcohol than almost anywhere else. The result is a huge strain on the NHS, higher fatalities due to drink driving, and in some cases higher rates of domestic violence. The problem is particularly bad amongst the middle aged and older generations, especially those who live alone.

In response, many British politicians have proposed a minimum price on alcohol, which will take effect in Scotland in May next year. The obvious case for it is that by raising prices, fewer people will drink regularly. Proponents of a price floor point to cigarettes, where raising taxes on tobacco has reduced smoking rates. A minimum price would also discourage young people from drinking by making it a less attractive proposition when people can buy alcohol legally for the first time.

It’s true that a minimum alcohol price will probably reduce alcoholism by a little bit. But I doubt it’ll be all that effective. If someone is addicted to alcohol, raising prices will likely mean alcoholics will cut spending on necessities, damaging their health. A price floor ignores the fact that many people who drink excessively are actually quite well off people who wouldn’t be affected. In practice, I suspect the main effect of minimum pricing would be to reduce the disposable income of the poor and the young, while doing little to reduce rates of addiction.

Britain’s alcohol problem is not caused by low prices. In most European countries, particularly in the south, alcohol is cheaper, and yet rates of alcoholism are lower. The exception to that is the former Soviet Union countries which have a particular problem with vodka addiction amongst men. But in countries like France and Spain, alcohol is cheap and yet consumed responsibly. This is because alcoholism is caused by a toxic drinking culture. In Britain, it is simply socially acceptable to get hopelessly drunk, even in supposedly respectable places like Oxford and Cambridge university. Most shockingly of all, the elite Bullingdon Club glorifies drunkenness. If the ultra-wealthy can abuse alcohol, then why not the rest of the population? For rates of alcohol abuse to come down, there needs to be a profound shift in social attitudes. Minimum alcohol pricing simply papers over the cracks.

I’m afraid I don’t believe reducing poverty rates will necessarily reduce rates of alcoholism by all that much. Partly because as I mentioned earlier, many of those who drink excessively are middle class. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10096120/The-ladies-who-have-too-good-a-lunch.html) Also, there are some very poor parts of East London and Norfolk where alcoholism is very low, and also some relatively well off parts of West London and Northern England where alcoholism is very high (http://www.localhealth.org.uk/#z=374097,465581,443482,315655;l=en;i=t2.bingedrinking;v=map8.) Obviously we should all  try to reduce poverty by as much as possible. But we will only solve our alcohol problem when we realise the issue is cultural, not economic.