The word “grammar” invokes many unhappy memories of inept writing in elementary school, a.k.a. grammar school.  At times, the rules of grammar and good usage seemed misplaced, and at other times, did not make sense.  Nonetheless, by necessity, I became a student of grammar, and have collected several books on the subject — for no good reason.  

My all-time favorite grammar book comprises a spoof on grammar rules, but with real impact.  See Safire, William, Fumble Rules— A Lighthearted Guide to Grammar and Good Usage, New York: Doubleday (1990.)  For over 30 years, William Safire (1929—2009) wrote two weekly columns for The New York Times: (1) a syndicated political column, as a self-defined Libertarian Conservative; and (2) the “On Language” column in the weekly The New York Times Magazine.  In the latter, he pondered many interesting facts, little used words, and proper grammar usage.  In 1978, Safire won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary.  

In his book: Fumble Rules, Safire pontificates fifty (50) grammar rules, each intentionally violating the very rule espoused, in hilarious fashion with witty turns of phrase to memorialize frequent grammatical and good usage errors. 

A collection of my ten favorite Fumble Rules follow:

Rule 1:  “No sentence fragments!” (p1) 

Rule 5:  “Don’t use contractions in formal writing!” (p13)

Rule 14:  “Don’t use no double negatives!” (p40) 

Rule 20:  “Verbs has to agree with their subjects!”  (p58) 

Rule 23:  “And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction!” (67)

Rule 27:  “Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do!” (p78)

Rule 29:  “Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.”  (p85)

Rule 41:  “Remember to never split an infinitive.” (p122)

Rule 49:  “Never use prepositions to end a sentence with!”  (p146) 

Rule 50:  “Last but not least, avoid cliches like a plague” (p149)

Safire includes 40 more Fumble Rules to the delight of the reader — or of the teacher of good writing.  He follows each rule with a brief humorous discussion of the rule.  It’s worthy of a prominent place on a writer’s library shelf.       

With the 2018 mid-term election approaching, we should focus our attention on “just the facts.”

Dragnet, the famous cop sitcom, featured Sergeant Joe Friday, who frequently stated when addressing a loquacious witness:  “All we want are the the facts, Ma’am.”  Sgt. Friday recoiled against emotional comments or opinions, seeking to obtain facts only.  A difficult task then, as now, evidenced by the spin tactics of some current politicians and journalists.   

In recent times, with the common useage of the phrase “fake news,” we hear the oft-cited quote of Senator Patrick Moynihan (1927—2003):  

— “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”

When opinion and facts overlap, distortion arises.  All of us should take prudent steps to “get the facts” before passing on a story or event to others.  Mark Twain (1835—1910) said it best:

—“Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.”

Though Mark Twain poked fun at writers, journalists, lawyers, and perhaps some scientists, all who deal with facts, which sometimes become problematic to support the desired result.  For one dealing with inconvenient facts, at least two principles should prevail:  

(1) do not omit important or unfavorable facts; and 

(2) present truthful facts in a supportive manner; i.e., the most favorable light, known in modern day parlance as “spin.”  

Facts may be troublesome things when one has a platform to support, and certain inconvenient facts contradict it.   At such times some unscrupulous advocates fall back on another familiar expression:

— “The ends justifies the means.” 

It is frequently attributed to Niccolo Machiavelli (1469—1527,) though not supported by research.  This ethically challenged approach emanates from the ancient doctrine of Consequentialism, which holds that “the consequences of one’s conduct are the 

ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.”  (wikipedia.org)  Under Consequentialism, concealing relevant facts, lying under oath, manufacturing untrue facts, become noble when the proponent obtains the desired result.

We observe politicians, and their surrogates, using Consequentialism in their “talking points,” which most often present a one sided view, sometimes by manufacturing or distorting “facts”  to mislead the public into supporting their current cause.  Unfortunately, the public frequently accepts those distorted “facts” at face value without confirming them on their own.  Sergeant Friday would not be amused.