Help, stamp out comma abuse, in our lifetime!

Back in June I noted George Will's lighthearted rant against the abuse of commas. James Kilpatrick, himself a language maven, now throws in his two cents on the topic. He reinforces my sentiment that the general rule for when or when not to use a comma is: it depends. Unhelpful, I know, but nevertheless true!

Being myself a crusader against apostrophe abuse, I couldn't help but notice a little faux pas by Kilpatrick near the end of his essay:

In "The Copyeditor's Handbook" (University of California Press), editor Amy Einsohn offers sensible rules for the comma, but she cuts us some slack. After we have mastered the do's and don'ts, she says, "we need to ask ourselves whether the presence or absence of a comma will best serve the writer's purpose and the reader's needs."

Merriam-Webster accepts this plural form of "do" but, apostrophe purist that I am, I consider it to be an abomination. It's the old "slippery slope", you know: allow the apostrophe in one plural word, and pretty soon you'll be seeing word's like it everywhere! The radical Islamists will see it as yet another example of infidel weakness and decadence! As Kilpatrick says: Aaargh!

But life goes on, and I will survive.