A European colleague, who spoke at least three languages and understood more, harbored a keen interest in mastering English idioms.  Whenever he visited, he would solicit a new one, and  particularly enjoyed “shooting the breeze.”  He would strive to use his new found idiom in a conversation to better remember it.  Later, I observed him speaking to a colleague and asked what they were talking about.  He replied:  Oh, nothing, we’re just “puffing the wind” — close, but no cigar!  But, how far off was he?  

Definition of “Wind:  “The perceptive natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction.  dictionary.com.  We all know wind when we feel, hear or see the result of it, but wind comes packaged in different forms.  Consider the following dictionary definitions that characterize some different kinds of wind:

Wisp:  a thin puff . . . as of smoke. 

Waft:  a light or gentle movement of air.

Whiff:  a puff or breath of air

Whoosh:  a sudden movement accompanied by a rushing sound.

Puff:  a short explosive burst of breath or wind.

Poof:  used to express a sudden disappearance.

Breeze:  a gentle wind

Gust:  a brief, strong rush of wind.

Gale:  a very strong wind

Upon hearing the word “wind,” one may think more of breezes than mere breaths. “Wisp,” suggests a barely perceptible movement of air, as in a “puff of wind” described by my colleague.  When someone “breaks wind,” however, no body would refer to it as a “wisp” of air, but perhaps as a “gust,” or a “whiff,” of foul air.  In terms of degree, little difference appears among “wisp,” “waft,” “whiff,” or “puff,” as they all have the sense of a brief breath of air.  “Poof,” “Whoosh,” “gust” or “gale” adds a bit more movement to the wind.  

We all know someone who openly, or secretly, was known as “Windy,” which meant that they spoke not in wisps, wafts, or whiffs, but breezy gusts without interruption, seemingly without taking any breaths.

The term wind becomes more complicated when one recognizes it as a homograph:  “each of two or more words spelled the same but not necessarily pronounced the same and having different meanings.” (dictionary.com.)    

Enough said about wind; its time to wind down.    

A few days before each year’s end, I reflect on the past year, about what I had done right,  wrong, or not at all, and then jot down some New Year’s Resolutions — a clean slate with the best of intentions.  Usually, they include terse reminders to exercise more, eat less, be kind to all, but sometimes add fervent hopes, like change an undesirable habit or accomplish a personal goal.  All my resolutions are well intended, but frequently wane in the passing weeks.  

If you belong to a gym, you will have noted that the first few days into the New Year, the gym is packed with overweight, out of shape people, who exercise way beyond their capability.  Thereafter, soreness becomes the perfect excuse to curtail the exercise routine as being injurious to one’s welfare.  How many friends have touted their new diet, only to falter when it becomes too hard or inconvenient to follow?    

According to a clinical psychcologist, “Approximately 80% of resolutions fail by the second week of February.”  (Joseph J. Luciani, “Why 80% of new Year’s Resolutions Fail.” US News, December 29, 2015.)  He blames this high failure rate on the resolutant’s lack of “self discipline.”  A 2007 study conducted at University of Bristol determined that 83% of the 3,000 participants failed in their quest. (Wikipedia)  Now, I do not feel so bad, knowing that I fit in with the greater majority.    

Interestingly, studies have tabulated the excuses of those who failed to keep their New Year’s resolutions:  35% claimed they had set unrealistic goals; 33% did not keep track of their progress, 23% forgot, and 10% made too many resolutions (Wikipedia, New Year’s resolutions.)  My own favorite: “I changed my mind,” did not make the chart.

But all resolutions do not have to fail, particularly if one approaches them differently, consider:

— “Year’s end is neither an end or a beginning but a going on, with all the wisdom that experience can instill in us.”  Hal Borland (1900–1978), a New York Times journalist.

I have adopted Borland’s mindset, and now reflect on all the wisdom and experience I have amassed over the past year, which keeps me on a positive path.  Not all New Year’s resolution quotes are consoling, consider:     

— “Good resolutions are simply checks that men draw on a bank where they have no account.”  Oscar Wilde (1854–1900)

— “Many people look forward to the New Year for a new start on old habits.” (Anonymous)

Lastly, I conclude with my favorite New Year’s resolution quote:

— “A New Year’s resolution is something that goes in one Year and out the other.” (Anonymous)

An ancient scholar best captured the essence of the phrase ‘Work Ethic” in a memorable rhyme:

“Good, Better, Best.  Never let it rest.

’Til good is better, and better is best.”  

—St Jerome (342—420)

No matter what one does, whether at play, in school, or at work, continual advancement along the good, better, best scale remains an excellent formula for obtaining fulfillment and self respect, as well as improving one’s development and earning other’s respect.

“Work ethic is a belief that hard work and diligence has a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character.”  (Work ethic, Wikipedia,)  Everyone knows someone who possesses a strong work ethic, and secretly wish that they had the fortitude to do as well.  However, the modern world presents many pleasurable distractions, including, smart phones, video games and television as well as other attractive distractions to avoid the task at hand.

A work ethic utilizes, sometimes unknowingly, a set of tenets to achieve success; such as: setting goals, prioritizing tasks, and maintaining diligence, otherwise known familiarly as “sticktuitiveness” — to stay on task until all tasks are done.

Unfortunately, some groups criticized the work ethic theme as a ruse to fool people to work hard for the benefit of others; i.e.  When coal miners work hard, they make the mine owners rich.  They replace the phrase “ work ethic” with a substitute phrase “work smart,” a contracted version of “Work smarter, not harder.” of Alan F. Mogensen (1901—1989), an Industrial Engineer and authority on work simplification. Mogensen focused on work process, unions, on making the elite richer.  Both utilized the “work smart” phrase with different twists.  

A further twist on the “work smart” concept:  Make yourself as valuable as you can to your employer.  How smart is it?  In times of economic downturn, the valuable stay; in normal times, they get promoted.  In addition to improving one’s value, it promotes one’s self respect and confidence.

Doing the best one can do, no matter the task, remains a worthy goal, which reaps benefits, notwithstanding that it may contribute to making someone else rich.        

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.