Author: andrewyiannakis

Andrew Yiannakis, Ph.D., is currently a Research Professor at the University of New Mexico (USA). He is also Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut where he taught the Sociology of Leisure, Tourism & Sport, as well as Research Methods and Computer Applications. He also holds the rank of 8th Dan in Traditional Jujutsu and a 6th Dan in Traditional Kodokan Judo. He is the Director of the Institute of Traditional Martial Arts at the University of New Mexico. He is also the Chair of the Traditional Jujutsu Committee of the USJJF. As an amateur historian, he has led several expeditions to Greece to conduct research at Thermopylae, and locate the path the Persians used in 480 BC to encircle, and defeat King Leonidas and the Greek allies. Prof. Yiannakis has published extensively in a number of areas.

Turkish Violations of Greek Airspace: What Is Turkey Up To?

BLOG (PL): Turkish Violations of Greek Airspace (v2.0)

Recently,  Turkey had the nerve to threaten Russia for violations of Turkish airspace. In fact,  Turkey shot down a Russian plane several months ago for crossing, and remaining in  Turkish airspace for about 45 seconds. Seriously?  In 2015 Turkey violated Greek airspace over 130 times!  Fortunately the Greek response was restrained and did not become violent. Can’t say the same for Turkey!

Now that Russia has violated Turkish airspace on TWO occasions the Turks are outraged that another country would dare do it to them! I say to Turkey,  try respecting other countries’ airspace first and then your complaints might be taken more seriously.

Turkey is unfortunately displaying the mentality of all bullies. They pick on militarily weaker countries, but when a more powerful nation such as Russia dishes it out to them,  they cry foul and whine and gripe. They obviously can’t take it.  Turkey is very fortunate that the Russian response was quite restrained,  this time around.

Sorry Turkey but nobody is coming to the rescue the next time this happens. However,  use this encounter with Russia and learn from it.  If you persist in the current war of words with Russia you may well end up with Russian troops in Ankara,  or you’ll have to deal with devastating Russian missile attacks! My advice, “don’t shoot down any more Russian planes”!

And,  who knows how long Greece and her allies will continue to tolerate violations of her airspace? If you continue to provoke,  like the bullies you are,  you may well give rise to hostilities that you may not be able to extricate yourselves from. And finally,  such provocations aren’t likely to impress the European Union,  and your application for membership. Of course, if Russia decides to intervene militarily,  Turkey may not be able to join the EU because very little will remain of today’s Turkey. If you haven’t learned this already,  learn your lesson now.  Russia is not a country you want to trifle with!

Clearly, Turkey under Erdogan’s fascist Government is continuing to rattle its sabers and engage in provocative acts of aggression. Its latest foray into aggression is the violation of Greek airspace, again! Three days ago (on Friday, September 30th), a Turkish fighter jet, accompanied by two helicopters, violated Greek airspace over the Southeastern Aegean. Including 2015, Turkey has violated Greek airspace over 140 times.   Every time, Greek fighter jets chased the intruders out of Greek airspace without a shot being fired.

What is one to make of all this? Are Turkish pilots so incompetent that they can’t figure out what their on-board instruments are telling them? Or, is Turkey testing the waters to determine how far they can push Greece? The latter is a more likely scenario, and such behavior raises to higher levels the tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean. Why is Erdogan’s Government playing this dangerous game? One possible reason may be a dissatisfaction by the Turks of the terms of the Lausanne Treaty of 1923. The treaty basically divided up the Eastern Mediterranean into Greek and Turkish sectors with clearly prescribed boundaries. Boundaries which Turkey appears to be challenging under Erdogan’s hawkish politics by continually violating Greek airspace. Is it possible that Turkey wants war with Greece in order to win back the territory Erdogan thinks Turkey lost under the Treaty of Lausanne?

Clearly, Erdogan has lost a sense of perspective. With all that’s happening in Syria and Iraq is this a good time to increase tensions in the region even more? Or, is he perhaps hoping that while the allies are concentrating on the war with ISIS they may not be ready, or willing, to intervene in hostilities between Turkey and Greece?

It is hard to read the mind of a dictator like Erdogan, but what has been clear with most dictators in the past, they all seem to need more power, and conquest seems to be a preferred strategy. Their strategy is to whip up nationalistic feelings in the nation, obtain the support of right wing fascists in the country, establish total control over the military, and then start to flex their military muscle (most likely against Greece). Given the state of disarray that Greece finds itself in at this time, I would predict that if I were Erdogan I would see this time as a good opportunity to strike.

I say to Greece and her allies, “remain vigilant because Erdogan may be another Hitler on the rise”! Constant violations of Greek airspace by Turkey may just be that, or they be a harbinger of something more ominous…..

Whats Is True Patriotism?

BLOG #17b: What is True Patriotism?

The term “patriotism” may well mean different things to different people.  I get that.   But at the heart of this term is the notion that patriots love their country,  and through ACTIONS and DEEDS help make it a safer and better place for all of us.

While many associate patriotism with displaying the flag and talking about how great the country is,  they in fact do very little by way of actions or deeds to make the USA a better place for all. Their rhetoric tends to be divisive,  and they often engage in a lot of fear mongering and hate. This is not true patriotism because fear and hate polarize Americans,  contribute to the rise of hate groups and make us view with suspicion Americans of different skin, color, or faith. Such behavior weakens the fabric of American society and undermines our ability to work together to make the nation a safer, and better place.

True patriotism,  on the other hand,  involves ACTIONS and DEEDS that help us see our differences as valuable assets and strengths that can be used for the betterment of our nation. Hillary Clinton is correct on this point.  We are “Stronger Together!”

Patriotism can take many forms so long as our actions contribute to the security and defense of the nation, and help make the country a better place to live. More specifically,  true patriotism is more than just words,  posturing, or the worship of symbols such as the flag. True Patriotism requires ACTIONS and DEEDs that:

1. Contribute to the protection and security of a nation.

2. Help move the country forward, and to a better place,  politically,  socially,  educationally, economically,  environmentally and scientifically.

Those patriots who contribute to the protection and security of a nation typically serve in our military;  they serve as police officers;  they work for our intelligence agencies,  and so on. An important aspect of their work is the fact that often they are called upon to put their lives on the line. This is one way of demonstrating true patriotism.

Other types of patriots that help make our country a better place work in education as teachers;  they help enhance the health of the nation by working as nurses,  paramedics,  firefighters and health professionals; they work in politics to make just laws that help all our citizens;  they work helping the needy and downtrodden,  trying to make their lives better;  they work with children and single mothers to empower them to take care of themselves; economically,  they contribute to the wealth of the nation by creating economic opportunities so that all Americans can achieve the American Dream, and contribute in productive ways;  they pay their taxes! Others help protect our environment and help make America a better place to live;  and,  scientifically,  they contribute through research and technological innovation that make our lives better,  and keep our country on the cutting edge of discovery and new product development.

The point is that all activities that help the security and defense of our nation, and help make the country a better place to live, reflect different forms of patriotism. Those who put their lives on the line for our country do, of course, deserve special praise and support, including the best medical care.

Patriotism is about ACTIONS and DEEDS and not about wrapping oneself in the flag and spouting forth slogans and extremist rhetoric.  It is about actions and deeds that help bring us together;  it is about actions and deeds that make us stronger by utilizing the strengths of our diversity; it is about actions and deeds that help us look more kindly on our fellow citizens;  it is about actions and deeds that unite us in continuing to keep our country great,  and,  it is about actions and deeds that help protect our country and make it a safer place for all Americans.  This is what true patriotism is about!

The fact is we are “stronger together” and those who would create division,  intolerance and fear in our nation are the most unpatriotic of all.  And a nation divided is a weak nation.

So,  ask these people who equate patriotism with militarism, the flag, and intolerance of our differences in terms of beliefs and skin color: “by what actions or deeds are you making America a safer and better place”?

My best guess is that the hypocrites and bigots,  who tend to be the biggest loudmouths in professing their patriotism,  will fail this test of true patriotism.

In conclusion,  any American can demonstrate his or her patriotism by engaging in ACTIONS and DEEDS that:

(1) Help protect America and make it a safer place for all.

(2). Help move the country forward,  and to a better place,  by contributing socially,  politically,  economically,  educationally, environmentally and scientifically,  among other areas.

Andrew Yiannakis,  Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Connecticut (ret.)
Research Professor
University of New Mexico (USA)
8th Dan,  Traditional Jujutsu
6th Dan,  Traditional Kodokan Judo

The Correct Use of “Number” and “Amount”

ENGLISH GRAMMAR MADE EASY

BLOG #. When should we use “Number” and when should we use “Amount”?

Andrew Yiannakis,  Ph.D.
Research Professor
University of New Mexico

Webster’s dictionary has this to say about “number” and “amount”:

Number is regularly used with “count nouns” as in: a large number of mistakes; any number of times, etc. Amount is mainly used with “mass nouns” as in annual amount of rainfall, a substantial amount of money, and so on.

A simple way to determine whether to use “amount” or “number” is to clarify in your head whether the object in question is divisible into parts;  can be counted or totalled up;  or can be easily separated into individual and discrete parts.

EXAMPLE1: You have ten marbles on the floor in front of you.  Do you refer to them as the number or amount of  marbles on the floor?

ANSWER1:  Since marbles can be counted,  totalled up or separated into individual and discrete parts,  the correct answer is “number of marbles”.

EXAMPLE2:  You have a pound jar of honey on the table in front of you. Do you refer to the honey in terms of amount or number?

ANSWER2:  Since the honey itself cannot be counted,  or separated into individual and discrete parts,  the correct answer is “amount of honey”.

Now,  if we were interested in knowing how many jars of honey we have,  the correct answer would be “number” of jars of honey because the jars themselves can be counted,  or separated into individual and discrete jars of honey.

Common Error:  The “amount” of people who came to the party…. This is definitely wrong.  The correct form is:  The “number” of people who came to the party… Can you explain why this is the correct form?

The Apostrophe: English Grammar Made Easy

Blog #10e: The Apostrophe

Andrew Yiannakis, Ph.D., Research Professor, University of New Mexico

In this blog I  discuss, among other things,  the various uses and meanings of the apostrophe. Merriam-Webster’s definition states:

“a mark  used to indicate:

  (i) the plural of letters or figures;

(ii) the omission of letters or figures;

(iii) the possessive case”

(i) The Plural Of Letters Or Figures

Typically we speak of the ONE or the MANY.
One is the singular form and the many (more than one) is the plural form.

Some examples of correct usage include:

Cats, NOT cat’s. Cats indicates that there is more than one cat, and cat’s is a possessive, as in “the cat’s paw”.

This a very simple rule: The plural of almost anything is indicated by simply adding an “s” on the end of a word; or by adding an “es”; or by changing slightly the end of the word. No apostrophes required.

Here are some examples:

House becomes houses in the plural form; gentleman becomes gentlemen; woman turns into women; potato becomes “potatoes”; soldier simply gets an s, as in “soldiers”; cat turns into “cats”; and burrito becomes “burritos”.

You will note that none of the above examples requires an apostrophe in the plural form.

(ii) Omission Of Letters Or Figures

The apostrophe is also used to denote that a
letter or number is missing from a word or term.

In demonstrating the omission of letters or figures we have the following examples:

The 1990s may also be written as “the ’90s”, but NOT  the “90’s” (or the 1990’s for that matter). In this latter example the apostrophe between the number “0” and the letter “s” indicates that there is a letter, or number missing.

In the ’90s example the use of the apostrophe in this manner is correct because it shows that the number “19”, as in the 1990s,  is missing. Thus, the ’90s is the correct form.

Also it is correct to say don’t as a contraction of “do not”,  to show that an “o” is missing. Similarly, “would not” becomes “wouldn’t”, for the same reason.

In summary,  the position of the apostrophe indicates where there is a letter(s) or number missing. The apostrophe is never to be used to denote the plural form of a word as in cat’s or the 1960’s. These forms are incorrect.

(iii) The Possessive Case

The apostrophe is used to denote to whom something belongs, or to indicate some form of possession.

Examples of correct usage:

a.  “Linda’s book”. This example shows the use of the apostrophe to denote the possessive form. That is, it tells us that the book belongs to Linda.

b. We all went to St. James’s Park in London. You will note that the name James becomes the possessive form when an apostrophe and an “s” are tacked onto the end. However, some authorities argue that the sibilant sound that two “S” letters make next to each other creates “phonological awkwardness” for the speaker, and in recent years editors and grammarians have been dropping the second S after the apostrophe.

So the rule appears to be that when you have two similar sounding letter endings (sibilants, in this example) the second “S” need not be included. Thus, it is correct by this rule to write the possessive form of James as James’. Another example is the possessive form of Jesus, which may be written as Jesus’ as opposed to Jesus’s. But once more, authorities are not in total agreement at this time so, in the interest of parsimony, we may skip the inclusion of the second S. This appears to be the trend with proper nouns (e.g, proper names of people, countries and the like), but with regular nouns such as boss, cross  or bus, the trend is to include the second S in the possessive form. Thus, it is correct to say, “the boss’s daughter” (as opposed to the boss’ daughter which both looks and sounds ridiculous!). Similarly, we would say “the bus’s engine broke down” as opposed to “the bus’ engine broke down, and so on.

In summary the current rule appears to be as follows:

The possessive form of PROPER nouns  (where a sibilant such as the letter S is involved) is written thus: Jesus’ robe, or St. James’ Park. As an aside, in London the street sign for the park is written as “St. James’s Park”. Perhaps this is a remnant of another era……

However, the possessive form of REGULAR nouns (that include a sibilant) such as boss,  cross, or bus is written as boss’s, cross’s or bus’s.

Go figure!!!

Let’s discuss one more example where the apostrophe helps differentiate between singular and plural forms.

For example, the “boy’s marbles” is the possessive form for ONE boy, while the “boys’ marbles” is the plural possessive for MANY boys. Similarly, “the soldier’s weapons” denotes the singular form (for one soldier) while “the soldiers’ weapons” shows the plural possessive form for several soldiers. Note the location of the apostrophe in the above examples.

As a final example, please note that the “Roman’s tactics” refers to ONE Roman’s fighting plans (the singular form) while the “Romans’ tactics” speaks to the fighting plans of many Romans (the plural form). And, also note that the plural of Roman is Romans, NOT “Roman’s”.

YOU MAY SKIP THIS PART

I believe that most of us are aware of the fact that language is always in a state of flux. This is a good indication that language is always changing and what used to be hard and fast grammatical rules are now referred to as “elements of style”, “elements of common usage”, and the like. While this process may imply that there are no rules and anything goes, this could not be further from the truth. Typically, language rules are stable, and relatively persistent, and significant change is a very slow process. That is, grammatical rules typically undergo significant modifications every fifty to a hundred years, or so, and sometimes it takes even longer. This doesn’t mean that it takes this long for new words to surface and become accepted. Rather, I am referring to the underlying rules that guide the structure and use of a language, and it is these rules that change very slowly.

Language education is clearly sensitive, and dependent on time and place. It is important, therefore, when we teach our students, to convey the importance of learning the  language rule structure of their times (rather than the language structure of Dickens, for example) if they are to become efficient and persuasive writers, thinkers and speakers in their own lifetime. And, effective language skills, combined with a superior subject matter education, help open doors in many spheres of life. It is the stuff that leaders are made of (and superior teachers, too)!

Andrew Yiannakis, Ph.D.
Research Professor
University of New Mexico (USA)

When to “BRING” and when to “TAKE”

ENGLISH GRAMMAR MADE EASY

Andrew Yiannakis, Ph.D., Research Professor, University of New Mexico

BLOG #15: To BRING  or To TAKE?

Often, the two terms can be used interchangeably with no loss in meaning. In certain circumstances, however,  it makes more sense to use one over the other. The distinction speaks to whether the action in question involves movement toward you, or movement away from you.

Two examples of correct usage:

“Take me with you” (movement away) or,
“Bring me the book” (movement toward)

It seems more logical to use the term “bring” when the action involves  movement toward you, as in “bring the book to me”, or simply “bring me the book”.

When the implied action involves movement AWAY from you,  the verb “to take” makes more sense. For example, “I want you to take my car to the dealer” and not, “I want you to bring the car to the dealer”, because the action involves movement away from you. However, it is correct to say, “please bring me my car from the dealer”. This action involves movement toward you, hence “to bring” is the correct form.

Short versions include “take it away”
(involves movement away from you) and “bring it here” (involves movement
toward you).

In summary, if the action implies movement TOWARD you, then the correct form is “TO BRING”. If, on the other hand, the implied action involves
movement AWAY from you (or your location), then the correct form is to “TAKE”.

If interested, the rule comes from Linguistics and is an example of
“Deixis”,  which speaks to positional contexts. Enough? OK, I get it so please take it away!!!

The Different Spellings of Jujutsu, Jujitsu and Jiu Jitsu (v2.2)

your Profile Photo

BLOG #5: A FINAL word on what the different spellings of Jujutsu/Jujitsu/Jiu jitsu actually mean.

Andrew Yiannakis, Ph.D., Research Professor (UNM), 8th Dan Traditional Jujutsu; 6th Dan Traditional Kodokan Judo. He is Chair of the Traditional Jujutsu Committee of the USJJF and Director of the Institute of Traditional Martial Arts at the University of New Mexico (USA).

If you’ve been following my blog on this issue it should be clear that it’s not just about how you spell it.  The different spellings are actual portals to different styles/systems, and the cultural practices and ways that characterize and differentiate them. The point is that  Jujutsu systems are significantly different from Jujitsu, or Jiu Jitsu systems.

Genuine Japanese, or Japanese-based systems use Romaji and the correct spelling under Romaji is Jujutsu. Jutsu in Romaji means “art” or “craft”. Of note is the fact that Jigoro Kano himself (the founder of Judo) began using the Romaji version of Jujutsu as early as 1887, in a paper entitled “Jujutsu and the Origins of Judo” (with T. Lindsay). Finally, the Kodokan, among other major Japanese martial arts organizations, fully adopted Romaji spelling and we see it used in reference to Kodokan Goshin Jutsu, the Nage No Kata, the Katame No Kata, and in the spelling of all techniques employed in Judo and Jujutsu.

Western, or Westernized systems do not use Romaji and spell the art as Jujitsu or Ju-Jitsu. While some overlaps exist between these systems (Jujutsu and Jujitsu/Ju-jitsu, that is), Western or Westernized systems have for the most part moved away from Japanese Ways & Practices and their brand of Jujitsu/Ju-jitsu has a strong Western flavor. For example, their dojo practices tend to be more relaxed, the use of Japanese terminology is rarely employed,  or misused, and dress (the uniform) often reflects Western practices or preferences. One item that often stands out is the fact that Westerners often cover their jackets with patches and work out by wearing t-shirts under their jacket. In traditional Jujutsu systems such “adornments”  are frowned upon on the mat.

Jitsu in Romaji does not mean art; rather, it means “reality” or “truth”, a fact that escapes many who claim to be practicing Traditional Japanese Jujutsu, which they spell as Jujitsu.

Jiu-Jitsu is a spelling form that was sometimes used in the early part of the 20th century, before Romaji became the accepted form for Japanese, or Japanese-based systems. This spelling form was popularized in Brazil and today, Jiu-jitsu is most often associated with  Brazilian fighting arts.

In summary:

  1. Jujutsu is used by Japanese,  or genuine Japanese-based systems and it’s based on Romaji (the Romanization of the Japanese Language).
  2. Jujitsu/Ju-jitsu is used to denote Western,  or highly westernized systems (the latter may have some weak links to Japanese systems). Such systems, for the most part,  do not employ Romaji.
  3. Jiu jitsu mostly characterizes  Brazilian systems,  although this form crops up rather infrequently as an early (early 20th century,  that is) Western misinterpretation of the hiragana employed to represent the sound of the Kanji for the ju  and jutsu sounds. Such styles also do not employ Romaji.

For those among you who may be interested,  two of the best sources of Romaji are Hepburn’s dictionary (1887) and Henshall’s book (1988). Romaji was officially adopted by the Japanese Government in the early 1950s and is taught in Japanese schools.

Addendum: A Word About the Origins of Romaji (Roman Letters)

The earliest Japanese romanization system was based on Portuguese spelling. It was developed around 1548 by a Japanese Catholic named Yajiro. Jesuit priests used the system in a series of printed Catholic books so that missionaries could preach and teach their converts without learning to read Japanese Kanji. Later, it was also adopted by Westerners to enable them to communicate and trade with the Japanese. Romaji underwent a number of iterations until its culmination in the Hepburn System, in 1887. As Romaji increased in popularity, especially as a way of communicating with Westerners who found Japanese difficult to learn, the system started to make its way into the Japanese Martial Arts and was adopted, in great numbers, by Jujutsuka, Karateka, Judoka and Aikidoka, among other Japanese martial artists.

Finally, it is important to note that the different spellings of Jujutsu, Jujitsu or Jiu Jitsu do not simply reflect surface level stylistic spelling variations. They are, in fact, portals or gateways to different cultural ways and practices, traditions and styles of Jujutsu/Ju-Jitsu/Jiu Jitsu.

USING PRONOUNS

Rev 1.1
BLOG 10d: Using PRONOUNS correctly

Some examples of pronouns include: I/me, he/him and she/her.

The fact that grammar is rarely taught in schools has created an appalling  level of illiteracy in both the spoken and written word. Such illiteracy has been further promoted by scriptwriters in movies, TV programs, and in novels, and today most people are clueless as to how to speak and write correctly. Let me give you some examples of INCORRECT usage of the pronouns I, HE and SHE:

  1. John gave the books to Sally and I
    2.  The book is for HE and John
    3. The book is for SHE and I
    4. Give the book to John and I
    5. It’s for HE and I to decide

Some Background

Many people just don’t know how to speak or write because the rules of grammar governing the use of pronouns are rarely taught. Yet, there is a surprisingly simple fix to this problem and it has to do with prepositions.
Prepositions are words that introduce information to the reader and include such terms as “for”, “after”,  “to” and “with”, among others. Here are a few common examples showing the CORRECT use of prepositions and pronouns. The prepositions are *asterisked*.

  1. The book is *for* ME (not I)
    2. He is *after* HER (not she)
    3. He gave the information *to* HIM and ME
    4. John is *with* HER (not she)
    5. Give it *to* HIM (not he)

So what is the rule? Have you figured it out? Well, it’s this. If a pronoun follows (comes after) a preposition, then the correct form is always “me, him or her”, as indicated in the above examples.

So when do we use the pronouns I, HE or SHE?
Again, there is a simple rule for this. If the above pronouns come BEFORE a preposition, then it is correct to use the forms I, HE or SHE , as in the examples below. Prepositions are *asterisked*:

  1. John and I went *to* the movies
    2. He and she have been friends *for* years
    3. She and I had lunch *on* the beach

YOU MAY SKIP THIS PART

For those who may have a deeper interest in how grammatical rules drive both the spoken and written word, here is a bit more for you. I know you are chomping at the bit to hear it!

The original rules of grammar that pertain to the use of pronouns actually come from Greek and Latin, and refer to pronouns that are either the SUBJECT or the OBJECT of a sentence (and their most common respective forms in Greek and Latin which include the Nominative, Dative and Accusative cases, among several others). For example, “John and I went to the beach”. In this example John and I are the subject of this sentence and that’s why John and I (not me) is the correct form. In Latin or Greek this form indicates the Nominative case.

In this next example, “James gave the books to John and me”, the book is the subject of the sentence and John and me are the object (the Dative case).

Of course, in the original Latin or Greek this distinction was indicated by changing either the ending of the pronouns or by introducing a different word.  Since English does not possess this facility, we accomplish the same thing by using different forms of a pronoun. That is “I, or Me, He or Him, or She or Her”. Also we use prepositions to determine whether the pronoun in question is the subject or the object of a sentence, and, that is how we know when to say “I or Me, He or Him and She or Her”, and so on.

In summary, if the pronoun comes before a preposition in a sentence, then we use “I, He or She”. If the pronoun is after the preposition
then the correct form is “Me, Him or Her”.

The ability to write and speak correctly, eloquently or persuasively is the mark of a well educated person and, this being so, then the word can indeed be “mightier than the sword”!

Andrew Yiannakis, Ph.D.
Research Professor
University of New Mexico, USA

 

Regime, Regimen, Regiment

BLOG #10a: Regime, Regimen and Regiment
In this series of blogs I will be pointing to, and clarifying some very common grammatical errors in the English language. Today, I explain the differences in meaning between “regime”, “regimen” and “regiment”.

(i) Regime refers to a political entity as in “Castro’s regime in Cuba”

(ii) Regimen refers to a plan as in “training regimen”

(iii) Regiment refers to a large body of men in the military.

 

Blog #10G: To, Too and Two

A clarification of the uses and meaning of “to”, “too” and “two”.

These are sometimes used interchangeably by some people, but such usage is incorrect because the terms don’t mean the same thing.

  1. “To” is a preposition and is used in various ways to connect parts of a sentence.

Some examples:

It’s not up to you
I gave the book to her
I went to the show

  1. “Too” is another way of saying “also”.

Some examples:

I want one too
Me too
I liked it too

  1. “Two” denotes a numeric concept.

Some examples

I have two cars
She gave me two books
The number two is a lucky one for me.

And there you have it!

Andrew Yiannakis, Ph.D.
Research Professor
University of New Mexico (USA)

 

Texas and the “Open Carry” Law

BLOG #20a: Texas And The “Open Carry” Law

 A half-baked idea by a half-brained legislature?

 Andrew Yiannakis, Ph.D.

 Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut

Research Professor, University of New Mexico (USA)

There is a cancer sweeping across America, gobbling up large swaths of territory. This cancer has a name, and it’s not ISIS! It is a brand of right wing extremism that has taken over the minds of the poor and the uneducated, and has found a voice in some legislatures across the country. This NRA-driven initiative is the latest manifestation of this cancer in the Texas Legislature, and the passage of its “open carry” law with minimum restrictions. While almost 31 States in the Union have “open carry” laws, this recent enactment removes most of the restrictions associated with this law. The Texas law basically makes it legal to openly carry a weapon almost anywhere in the State of Texas, including public university campuses and the classroom. A Texas resident now has a right to legally carry a gun, openly, to a sports event; to a bank; to a shopping mall; to a Post Office; and to college campuses and the classroom (private universities are exempt). In fact, the law has made it legal, under a deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, to turn the State of Texas into an armed camp.

 

According to former conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, the right to carry guns is protected under the 2nd Amendment by the Constitution of the United States, so long as those who carry such weapons form a “well-regulated militia for the purpose of protecting the State”. The latest law enacted by Texas makes it legal for any citizen to carry a gun to pretty much anywhere, whether that citizen is a member of a “well-regulated militia”, or not.

 

The motivation behind this law appears to be the perceived need for citizens to be able to defend themselves against acts of terrorism, or insanity (sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference) against lone or multiple shooters. The horror of recent acts of violence in schools (e.g. Sandy Hook), in places of worship (e.g., South Carolina), and the recent murder of 49 people in an LGBT night club in Orlando, Florida, to mention but a few, has critics suggesting that the police is not up to the task of protecting citizens, and “open carry” seems to be the only logical solution available. At least, this is what the NRA would have us believe. So, the Texas Legislature, without examining the larger picture, and the ramifications of turning Texas into an armed camp, recently passed a special “open carry” law that permits citizens to take their guns practically anywhere they want to, including public university campuses and classrooms. This, in theory will enable citizens to defend against random acts of violence by the insane, the unhinged, or by terrorists.

 

On the surface, and in the absence of effective police protection, this law makes sense. But like every complex issue, simplistic solutions often miss the mark and, in this case, the Texas Legislature missed the mark by a mile. And what a public relations disaster this law will be for Texas!

Consider the following ramifications:

Relations Between the Police and the Public

Relations between the police and the public are already strained in many parts of the US. This past year we’ve seen over 760 shootings by police, the latest one being a case of a North Carolina State Trooper shooting, in error, an unarmed deaf/mute person who failed to stop his car when ordered to do so. While the notion of “shoot first and ask questions later” may apply to some cops, especially in high crime areas, how much more jittery do you think cops will be in “open carry” States when every time they stop someone for some routine violation, they’ll wonder whether the subject is armed? If you were a cop how would you react under such circumstances? In fact, I predict that we shall see many more shootings by police in “open carry” States than ever before. If I were a cop I would play it safe and shoot first and ask questions later.

In “open carry” States (especially those with few restrictions) it’ll make the job of police work much more complicated, especially when the police arrive on the scene of an on-going shoot-out between the “good” guys and “bad” guys. How is the police going to be able to sort all this out in the heat of the moment? If I were a cop I would shoot at anyone pointing a gun at me and ask questions later. If I were to hesitate I would be putting my life at risk. Why would we want to add more pressure on the police when the job they do is already stressful enough?

  1. If the intent of “open carry” laws is to give citizens a fair chance of defending themselves against acts of violence, there is an implied assumption in this law that, without any training under “combat” conditions citizens will remain calm, and disciplined, and defend themselves by shooting back at their attacker (and not at each other or the police). Yet, we know that even the most well trained soldiers sometimes falter under the pressure of gunfire, with the result that they either freeze, or start to shoot back recklessly, sometimes injuring or killing each other.

Some Economic Impacts of “Open Carry”

Economically this law may have severe consequences for both domestic and international tourism. Domestically, I predict a drop in visits from other US States that don’t have “open carry” laws, but where Texas is going to be hit the hardest is from international tourist arrivals, especially from Europe, Canada and Japan. International visitors generate a considerable amount of revenue for States such as Texas and Florida, among others, and a drop-off in tourist arrivals will cause the economy of Texas a lot of damage. Already, the mounting gun violence in the United States has caused the governments of France, and several other European countries, to begin issuing warnings to its citizens to avoid certain States and cities in the United States. My prediction is that these warnings will be extended to target States with “open carry” laws, and especially States that have few, or no restrictions on the carrying of guns.

Very often, what Americans don’t get is the fact that gun ownership in the rest of the world is an abhorrent idea and people feel uncomfortable around guns, especially when they are openly displayed. Guns are associated with rogue states and unstable third world countries, and are not seen as appropriate in civilized societies. Clearly, the Texas legislature failed to consider the broader ramifications of enacting an “open carry” law with almost no restrictions, and the State will suffer for it where it hurts the most. The pocketbook!

  1. The Convention Industry

The Convention Industry is a major source of revenue for many US States. It brings in visitors from around the world for trade conventions, sports conventions, movie conventions, academic conventions and conferences, and the like. The income generated by such events contributes to a State’s economy in significant ways, and can put a severe strain on a State when such income is lost, as North Carolina found out with its restrictive LGBT law.

  1. “Open Carry”: The College Campus and the Classroom

As a retired university professor, the idea of students “packing heat” in the classroom is very disconcerting, to say the least. University campuses and the classroom have always been thought as near “sacrosanct environments” that provide students a hiatus from the demands and pressures of everyday life. It is a place where education can take place unhindered and unfettered by fear, threat or intimidation. It is a place where the pursuit of learning, and the trust that often develops between students and professors can lead to the freedom to challenge ideas without fear of intimidation, to question, investigate and analyze openly, and honestly. The classroom is a place where students can learn to think first, and acquire technical, or job skills second. It is a place where ideas, questioning, debate and discussion help to open the mind and free students from “falsehood and illusion”, as Plato wrote over two thousand years ago. By bringing guns into the classroom, the near pristine nature of an ideal learning environment will be contaminated and corrupted, thus damaging the learning process and causing mistrust between professors and students (and even among students themselves).

“Open carry” on campus (or any guns on campus) and the classroom is a very bad idea for another reason. Since the law gives everyone the right to carry a gun, what is there to prevent some professors from packing in the classroom, as well? After all, professors have the right to defend themselves under this law as well! I know that many professors in Texas are already intimidated by the idea of students bringing guns to the classroom, and this is causing many to consider leaving the Texas system of higher education. Already, there are reports that faculty are leaving Texas universities in large numbers, which is not surprising, and my guess is that those who choose to remain may start bringing their own guns to the classroom as well!

The militarization of Texas, and in particular, its public universities, will have severe consequences on Texas higher education. Top academics are already abandoning ship, and one major consequence will be the degradation of higher education. This will also tarnish the image of Texas’ fine universities. The negative snowball effect and economic impact of guns on campus, and in the classroom, could be devastating. Economically, many universities in Texas generate revenue by admitting international students who often pay top dollar to attend. I predict that much of this revenue will be lost as most international students will study elsewhere in the USA. If the cancer continues to spread to other States, and more American universities become armed camps, I predict that the USA will start to see fewer and fewer international students attending American universities. This trend will undoubtedly help British and other major European universities where guns are illegal.

Finally, I should mention that many college professors in Texas are extremely concerned about this turn of events, and recently filed a motion to overturn the open carry law, as it applies to college campuses and the classroom. Their “initiative” didn’t go anywhere. A Texas judge upheld the “open carry” law without restrictions, starting, in effect, the Texas academic brain drain!

“Open Carry” at Sports Events

The potential for gun violence in sports events is high, given that the excitement and the action of a game often energize and hype up fans and spectators. In such a hyped-up state it is not unreasonable to predict that some fans, upset by losing an important game decide to “punish” the athlete, or athletes who, in their minds lost the game for them. What is there to stop an irate fan from using their AR-15 to take out the athlete who fumbled a ball and helped destroy everything they lived for? I would suggest that in a high state of excitation, and after having put a few beers away, shooting the athlete who failed them won’t seem such an unreasonable act. After all, they deserved it, right?

Further, how is “open carry” going to affect sports events, and other events of a social nature that traditionally attract families with young kids? Would you, as a parent, want to take a chance and take your children to an event where you may be surrounded by excited, and hyped up fans, most of whom are brandishing assault weapons all around you?

An Aside

Texas has historically shown an inclination to want to secede from the Union, to become its own independent country. Perhaps this is the time to grant them their wish before their cancer starts to infect the rest of the nation. And, as a bonus, after Trump loses to Hillary in November, he may be invited to become the first President of the new State of Texas where, he’ll at least be able to qualify for a loan without having to reach out to Russia!!! And, as a bonus, he’ll have the money to pay for his “wall”, for the Mexican Government is certainly not going to oblige him!

ANNOUNCEMENT

Folks, if you are interested in following my English Grammar (Let’s Get It Right) or Political Blogs and General Commentary on current events, please access my main site for a COMPLETE LIST at:

http://unm.wsrjj.org/persweb.htm