Saturday, November 4, 2017

"Collision 'em!"

One of the pitfalls of being a language snob, to which I readily admit, is making a mistake myself.  Yep, I make some mistakes and I often dislike myself for doing so.

I know language evolves.  What was once frowned upon is now standard or at least accepted.  But that doesn't mean I have to like the changes.

It is like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear that someone "is referencing" something or that something "impacts" or "grow your business."  Grrr......  How's this one, if those are all right?  If a football player tackles another player hard, can we say "He collisioned him?"  Why not?  Can't we say, "refers to" or "has an impact?"  I know, I know......

I received an e-mail this week that included an article in which a Michigan state legislator was "shocked" that there's a teacher shortage in Michigan.  "Shocked?"  Is this guy a lame-brain?  It was his political party which bears much of the responsibility for the shortage.  He will remain anonymous to protect him from ridicule, although I think he deserves it.  Gee, can anyone think why there's a teacher shortage in this state?

Hmmm...... Let's see.  I can graduate from college with about $20-30,000 of student debt.  I can become a teacher and make about $35,000 to start.  If I'm lucky, I'll get annual bumps in pay, but that's if I'm lucky.  Many/Most districts in this state have cut teacher pay over the past 11-12 years.  Thanks to the Republican governor and state legislature, my district can expect less and less aid from the state; guess whose pay is tied to those cuts?  Yep, mine.  Now, the governor and legislature take away my pension or create some bogus one that isn't nearly as good.  Toss in increased shares of health insurance premiums, much higher co-pays and deductibles--from that huge salary of $35,000.  And I can also get ready for more tests and paperwork courtesy of our state legislators, you know, things that take away from real learning.  If that's not enough, the corporate-types, media, and public in general will continue to dump all over me, blaming me for the sad state of education in this state.  Yeah, I want to be a teacher.

On second thought, maybe I'll be a state legislator.  Apparently there is no IQ test and starting pay is $71,000.

I was asked last week by a firm for whom I do some consulting (for want of a better term) what I like most about teaching.  One of the things I said was that I am continually learning.  (Karen has said more than once that I'd have been a professional student if I'd been given a choice.)  I was reminded of this as I posted something in an e-mail exchange.  The question arose of where the "3/5 Compromise" at the Constitutional Convention originated.  Specifically, it was why "3/5?"  That's a weird fraction.  Why not "1/2" (50%)?  After all one side, the Northern or Southern states, favored counting all (100%) or none (0%) of the slaves for representation in the House and/or taxation.  A compromise, logically, then would have been "1/2."  (I used my calculator.)  But it wasn't; it was "3/5."  I remember reading somewhere sometime that 3/5 came from a scientific study produced by a VA planter (Scientific?  Yeah, right.) that demonstrated slave labor produced only 3/5 of the work of  free labor.  My problem is I can't remember where I found this, years and years ago.  I don't recall the name of the author of the study or of the study itself.  But if I could it would help explain a lot.

I've looked in a number of my old books.  Nothing.  I've look through my files.  Nothing.  I've looked online.  Nothing.  I even took to asking the gods.  One of my Amherst professors has heard nothing of this.  The author of a textbook I use in class and of quite a number of other books on Ante-Bellum and Reconstuction America knows nothing of it.  Hmmm......  I fear I will not find the source.

I do know, though, that I must have read it somewhere.  I'm not smart enough or creative enough to just make up something like this.  I have two more inquiries out there, hoping to find answers.  Sometimes learning is not easy.

2 comments:

Jerry said...

It was the South that wanted to count slaves at 100% to increase their Congressional representative, in Congress

Ron Marinucci said...

But the South didn't want to count slaves at 100% for purposes of taxation. The roles of the North and South differed/reversed depending on the debate: representation in the House of Representatives or taxation.