Janet mentioned this several days ago, but I didn't have time to read it then, and then forgot about it until this morning.
I'm very sympathetic, but, as Hart seems to suspect, that way madness lies. Or at least a grave social difficulty: you'll become a person everyone hates if you insist on correcting these usages, and you won't make yourself happy, either. I am learning to ignore most of these things most of the time and of course I have many occasions to practice my patience. I used to work with someone who was in general very particular and accurate about spelling and grammar, and would mercilessly rip apart a memo or email message that included mistakes. And yet she would say "They invited he and I to attend the meeting." It was very hard to keep my mouth shut.
If I'm not mistaken, that one goes back further (farther?) than one might think. Not too long ago I ran across a reference to it that went back decades, but now I can't remember where it was. It may occur in a letter written by a character in Ross Macdonald's The Galton Case, published in 1959, though I could be wrong about that.
Another thing I notice a good deal now is the way our predominantly oral culture takes turns of phrase from print to voice and back to print again and gets very confused about them in the process. One that I encounter frequently is "tow the line," which should be "toe the line." Its origins seem to have had something to do with standing in a prescribed position, i.e. with your toes on a line, came to mean, metaphorically, to conform, whence it got mixed up (I assume) with the phrase "party line," and now is thought to mean the servile or thoughtless repetition of standard rhetoric. Which is not totally off from the original meaning, but isn't exactly the same. There are others, none of which I can think of at the moment.
I was a bit surprised by the complaint about "is comprised of." I thought that was legitimate: if these letters comprise the alphabet, isn't the alphabet comprised of the letters?
This piece shamed me into looking up, finally, after many years of assuming a very vague definition from context, the word "solecism." And some of the comments are amusing too.