Category: Writing

Calvin Coolidge: Showing (Who is Was) Rather than Telling

By , January 31, 2014 3:01 pm

I’ve been listening to Amity Shlaes’s book “Coolidge” as I run. The other day I listened to a story she tells about the recently inaugurated president still living at the Willard Hotel, apparently waiting until the Mrs. Harding moved out of the White House. In the story, Coolidge is asleep and awake in the middle of the night to discover a thief going through his clothes. As Snopes.com the story (remember, I’m listening to, not reading the story):

He watched as the thief first removed a wallet, then unhooked a watch chain. Coolidge calmly spoke
up from the darkness: “About that watch, I wish you wouldn’t take that.”

The startled man, gaining his voice, asked, “Why?”

Coolidge answered, “I don’t mean the watch and chain, only the charm. I’m very fond of that charm. It means a great deal to me. Take it near
the window and read what is engraved on the back of it.”

The burglar read: “Presented to Calvin Coolidge, Speaker of the House, by the Massachusetts General Court.” And now he was more surprised!

“Are you President Coolidge?” he asked. He evidently did not think he’d find the President sleeping in a hotel!

“Yes, I am, and I don’t want you to take that charm,” he said. Then he asked, “Why, Son, are you doing this?”

The young man explained that he and a friend traveled to Washington during their college break. They spent all of their money and had no
money to pay the hotel bill or pay for train passage back to school. “If you don’t mind,” he said, “I’ll just take the wallet.”

Coolidge did mind. He knew he had about $80 in his wallet. So he said, “How much will it take to pay your hotel bill and get you and
your friend back to the campus? Sit down and let’s talk this over.” Coolidge added up the room rate and two rail tickets. It came to $32.
That may not sound like much now, but it was a considerable sum then. “I’ll give you the $32 as a loan,” the President said, “and I expect
you to pay me back.”

The youth thanked him. Coolidge then advised him to leave by the same window he used to enter the room, as secret service agents were sure
to be patrolling the hallway. As the young man climbed out, Coolidge left him with this admonition: “Son, you’re a nice boy. You are better
than you are acting. You are starting down the wrong road. Just remember who you are.”

It wasn’t until after the death of Mrs. Coolidge in 1957 that this story was allowed to come out. It was first published in the “Los
Angeles Times.” And most interesting of all is that the President’s notes show that the young man was indeed better than he was acting.
He repaid the $32 loan in full.

Shlaes could have told me a million times what a good man Coolidge was, but she didn’t have to. The picture she described showed me who he was.

Problem Solved!

By , December 21, 2012 8:18 am

If you read one thing (no, 850 things, actually) read the reviews of the Hutzler 571 Banana Slicer on Amazon and let the holiday cheer begin!

Banana_2012-12-21_0814

The first two are priceless.

No More Winning for You, Mr. Banana!
For decades I have been trying to come up with an ideal way to slice a banana. “Use a knife!” they say. Well…my parole officer won’t allow me to be around knives. “Shoot it with a gun!” Background check…HELLO! I had to resort to carefully attempt to slice those bananas with my bare hands. 99.9% of the time, I would get so frustrated that I just ended up squishing the fruit in my hands and throwing it against the wall in anger. Then, after a fit of banana-induced rage, my parole officer introduced me to this kitchen marvel and my life was changed. No longer consumed by seething anger and animosity towards thick-skinned yellow fruit, I was able to concentrate on my love of theatre and am writing a musical play about two lovers from rival gangs that just try to make it in the world. I think I’ll call it South Side Story.

Saved My Marriage
What can I say about the 571B Banana Slicer that hasn’t already been said about the wheel, penicillin, or the iPhone…. this is one of the greatest inventions of all time. My husband and I would argue constantly over who had to cut the day’s banana slices. It’s one of those chores NO ONE wants to do! You know, the old “I spent the entire day rearing OUR children, maybe YOU can pitch in a little and cut these bananas?” and of course, “You think I have the energy to slave over your damn bananas? I worked a 12 hour shift just to come home to THIS?!” These are the things that can destroy an entire relationship. It got to the point where our children could sense the tension. The minute I heard our 6-year-old girl in her bedroom, re-enacting our daily banana fight with her Barbie dolls, I knew we had to make a change. That’s when I found the 571B Banana Slicer. Our marriage has never been healthier, AND we’ve even incorporated it into our lovemaking. THANKS 571B BANANA SLICER! Banana slicer…thanks to you, I see greatness on the horizon.

And then there is this product insight:

Angle is Wrong
I tried the banana slicer and found it unacceptable. As shown in the picture, the slices is curved from left to right. All of my bananas are bent the other way.

Another Defense of Niall Ferguson

By , August 21, 2012 1:05 pm

Harvard history professor Niall Ferguson took a shot at President Obama the other day in Newsweek, and in short order Ferguson was taking incoming fire from his own critics, including Paul Krugman, The Atlantic, and Politico, among others. I’m not an expert in either fiscal or foreign policy, so I’ll not comment there. I will say that if Krugman and The Atlantic missed the mark as badly as Politico’s Dylan Byers did, Ferguson’s wounds should heal quickly.

David Frum has come to Ferguson’s defense on the foreign policy front. This is my defense on the English grammar front.

Here is the relevant part of what Byers wrote at Politico:

So, in order to get himself out of that predicament, Ferguson decides to edit the CBO report to satisfy his own conclusions:

If you are wondering how on earth the CBO was able to conclude that the net effect of the ACA as a whole was to reduce the projected 10-year deficit, the answer has to do with a rather heroic assumption about the way the ACA may reduce the cost of Medicare. Here’s the CBO again:

“CBO’s cost estimate for the legislation noted that it will put into effect a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. The combination of those policies, prior law regarding payment rates for physicians’ services in Medicare, and other information has led CBO to project that the growth rate of Medicare spending (per beneficiary, adjusted for overall inflation) will drop from about 4 percent per year, which it has averaged for the past two decades, to about 2 percent per year on average for the next two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved …”

Indeed, it is, which is why I wrote what I wrote.

But Ferguson cut the CBO excerpt off mid-sentence and changed the meaning entirely. Here is how that last sentence in the excerpt actually reads:

It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare or will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law.)

So contrary to what Ferguson leads readers to believe, the CBO report does not state that the reduction is “unclear.” What is “unclear” is whether the reduction will come through greater efficiencies in healthcare delivery or reduced access to care.

So, one more time: The Oxford-trained, Harvard-employed, Newsweek contibutor Niall Ferguson just edited the CBO report to change its meaning.

With all due lack of respect: What are you thinking?

Better question: What was Mr. Byers thinking? I responded to him with the following:

Dylan,

With all due respect, Ferguson’s so-called “selective” edit did not change the meaning of the CBO’s sentence. You did, however.

You wrote, “So contrary to what Ferguson leads the reader to believe, the CBO report does not state that the reduction is ‘unclear.’ What is ‘unclear’ is whether the reduction will come through greater efficiencies in healthcare delivery or reduced access to care.”

Both sentences in that statement are incorrect: 1.) Ferguson’s edited version of the CBO report said “It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved” not that the reduction is “unclear.” 2.) Even in its unedited form, the CBO report did not say that it was unclear whether the reduction would come from greater efficiencies OR reduced access to healthcare. No, the CBO said that it was unclear whether the reduction would be ACHIEVED through greater efficiencies. If those efficiencies did not materialize, access to healthcare would be reduced.

Look at it this way: The structure of the CBO sentence in question is not parallel. The verb “achieved” applies only to the first clause and NOT to the second. To see what I mean, let’s remove the first clause:

“It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved . . . will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law).” Pretty silly sentence if you ask me.

The second clause only makes sense if you excise the verb “can be achieved” as follows: “It is unclear whether such a reduction . . . will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law).” In other words, the reduced access to healthcare will be the result of the reduction in Medicare spending rather than the reduction in Medicare spending being the result of reduced access to healthcare.

Thus Ferguson’s edit was not selective at all. According to the CBO, IT IS unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved. The words “through greater efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare” only speak to how that reduction might come.

Me thinks you owe Mr. Ferguson an apology–or at least a correction.

I’ll let you know how Mr. Bryers responds.

UPDATE: Mr. Bryers responded via e-mail, writing:

Hi Gregory,

You’re wrong.

The full sentence: “It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare or will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law.)”

Break it down: It’s unclear whether A can be achieved through B or will instead reduce C.

As in, “It is unclear whether weight-loss can be achieved through exercise alone or will instead reduce food-intake.” It would be ridiculous to make that mean, “It is unclear whether weight-loss can be achieved.”

Thanks,
D.

I responded in kind, well, the short kind: “Sorry, but you’re still wrong.”

To which he responded:

Gregory,

You agree that there is a reduction?

D.

And dutifully, I replied:

Dylan,

I agree that the CBO projects that the growth rate of Medicare spending will drop (or reduce) from 4% to 2% per year.

Do you agree with the following? And if not, why not?

The second clause only makes sense if you excise the verb “can be achieved” as follows: “It is unclear whether such a reduction . . . will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law).” In other words, the reduced access to healthcare will be the result of the reduction in Medicare spending, rather than the reduction in Medicare spending being the result of reduced access to healthcare.

Reduced Medicare spending is, after all, the subject of the verb “reduce” in the CBO sentence I quote above.

Thanks,
Greg

And that’s how things stand at 4:16 PM Mountain Time.

UPDATE (Wed. 8.22 10:22 AM):

Yesterday, Dylan asked:

You agree that there is a reduction?

I responded:

I agree that the CBO projects that the growth rate of Medicare spending will drop (or reduce) from 4% to 2% per year.

Do you agree with the following? And if not, why not?

The second clause only makes sense if you excise the verb “can be achieved” as follows: “It is unclear whether such a reduction . . . will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law).” In other words, the reduced access to healthcare will be the result of the reduction in Medicare spending, rather than the reduction in Medicare spending being the result of reduced access to healthcare.

Reduced Medicare spending is, after all, the subject of the verb “reduce” in the CBO sentence I quote above.

A bit later, I read a new post by Byers, one that compared a 2009 CBO statement with the 2011 statement at issue. I quickly wrote Byers:

I just read your “ducks, nitpicks” post in which you virtually concede my argument: The CBO is (was?) unclear whether the reduction can be achieved–yes, the CBO said it more clearly in its 2009 letter, but the bolded quote in the 2011 testimony says essentially the same thing, as I’ve pointed out in my previous e-mail. Seems to me that the bone you want to pick is with the CBO because, I repeat, Ferguson’s quote was fair, ellipsis and all. The CBO–in both quotes–was unsure whether the reduction would be achieved through efficiencies. The possible reduction in care or access to care would be **because** of the reduction in spending.

Spin it as you will, that’s that the CBO says in both bolded quotes in your “ducks, nitpicks” post.

He responded:

Ferguson is suggesting the CBO says there might NOT be a reduction.

And followed up with:

In other words, if you are correct, why did the 2009 CBO say “if so” and “whether”

To which I responded:

Dylan,

You accused Mr. Ferguson of editing the CBO report in “a ridiculous, misleading, ethically questionable way that completely misses the mark” of “chang[ing] the meaning entirely.” And yet, here we are in a two-day e-mail exchange, debating the meaning of the very sentence in question. Ironic, no? I’ll repeat my understanding of the sentence in question one more time.

The short story: In both CBO statements, the first clause is about the HOW of the reduction. The second clause is about the possible EFFECT of any reduction. The CBO statements do not present a case of either/or.

Let’s look at CBO 2011 again–grammatically:

It is unclear whether such a reduction [the object of this sentence] can be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare.

OR

It is unclear whether such a reduction [the subject or actor in this sentence] will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law.)

As I read those two sentences, I see two different concerns on the CBO’s mind: 1.) a question of whether greater efficiencies will lead to a reduction of Medicare spending, and 2.) a concern about the effect of a reduction in Medicare spending–however that reduction comes about. The first is a question of HOW. The second is a concern about EFFECT.

That reading is buttressed by the CBO’s 2009 letter

“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so [that is, IF it is achieved], whether

1.) it [the reduction–the object of this clause] would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care

OR [however it’s achieved]

2.) [the reduction–the subject of this clause] would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

To repeat: In both CBO statements, the first clause is about the HOW of the reduction. The second clause is about the possible EFFECT of any reduction. The are separate issues or concerns.

As you said yourself in your “Nitpicks” post, had Ferguson quoted the 2009 letter, he would have been on firm ground. My analysis says that he was also well within the bounds of a fair reading of the 2011 statement to claim that the CBO was unclear that a “reduction in the growth rate could be achieved.”

Again, if you’ve got a bone to pick, go pick it with the CBO person who wrote those statements. They could have been written more clearly. So yes, I can see where you’re coming from, but it’s a stretch–and frankly unfair–to claim that your reading is the only correct reading and therefore Ferguson “misses the mark,” is “unethical,” and that he “changed the meaning entirely” of the CBO’s statement.

I don’t know Ferguson. Though I lean right, this is not a partisan issue for me. I simply feel that your post was unfair and responded accordingly.

Respectfully,

Greg Taggart

(All emphasis and most of the formatting in the last e-mail above is mine, something I point out to the general reader, but that I did not say in my original e-mail to Byers since he was familiar with the actual statements.)

Update:
Ferguson defends himself.

I Know the Feeling

By , February 20, 2012 11:54 am

Finding God While Losing Your Voice? We’ll See.

By , May 9, 2011 4:57 pm

I’ve been a fan of Christopher Hitchens for at least 10 years, largely because I agreed with his principled stand on Iraq. I’ve since learned that it’s possible he would take a similar stand if someone wanted to invade Utah. He doesn’t like my church, any church for that matter.

A churchman myself, I can turn the other cheek and allow him to slap away. I have this sneaky feeling that he’s a closet Christian. His brother Peter is a believer. What do I base this “feeling” on? Two things. The first was an article in The Washington Post (I think), wherein he talked about how he made sure his children read the Bible because it had such an influence on Western civilization. The second is his recent paen to the King James Bible in Vanity Faire, again for much the same reasons.

The God I believe in is great enough to forgive Christopher’s sins, once Christopher himself sees them.

If he–Hitchens, that is–has the towering intellect attributed to him, he’ll one day recognize them. In this, I disagree with his brother. It’s not the cancer that will bring Christopher to God. It’s the attendant humility.

God, after all, will have a humble people.

And with this, I almost forgot why I began this post. The reason, again in Vanity Faire, is Hitchen’s essay on losing his voice. Essays like this are one reason I respect the man. If he’d only not written that diatribe against my religion.

Best Blog Post of the Year

By , May 9, 2011 9:24 am

By Ann Althouse.

Get Your Metaphors and Similes Right Here

By , March 3, 2011 9:09 am

Dick Harmon has never met a metaphor or simile he didn’t like, and he uses them like most people eat potato chips or popcorn–by the hand full. His indiscriminate use of these and similar figures of speech is on full display in his story today in the Deseret News about BYU’s loss to New Mexico, a loss occasioned by the suspension of star center Brandon Davies for violation of BYU’s Honor Code.

I’ll give you the first few lines of the story to illustrate what I mean. It’s not pretty. In fact, it kind of like sucks.

PROVO —

All it took to humble BYU as a No. 3 ranked team was New Mexico.

The Lobos came to the Marriott Center Wednesday and slapped around BYU good 82-64.

It was a painful end to a very emotional 24 hours for Dave Rose’s Cougars, a shadow of their previous selves.

The Cougars came out against the Lobos in a daze as if in a fog. They pressed on shots like they were all life and death and cost a million bucks.

Gone was the confidence witnessed last Saturday in the win over then No. 4 San Diego State. It was like somebody turned on a faucet since that day and all BYU synergy leaked out of the tank.

And New Mexico turned into the Celtics.

The atmosphere in the Marriott Center, one of magic for 12 straight home games, turned weird, like somebody cast a spell on the guys in white jerseys. (helpful bolding mine)

Had enough?

On Teaching Writing

By , February 4, 2011 10:50 am

Among other things, Roger Rosenblatt teaches writing at Stony Brook University. He talks about teaching in a recent interview with The Christian Science Monitor.

Two key paragraphs hit home, the first, because it has already caused me to raise the bar for myself:

Who taught you to write?
I went to the the Friends Seminary in New York, which was a dreadful school largely, except for one fellow named Jon Beck Shank. He was a Mormon who had come out of the army, went to Yale, and was very interested in theater. He gave us Canada Mints to taste and said, “Taste this and write down what it tastes like,” so we would learn to write metaphor and simile. He had us read poetry, a great deal of poetry so as to appreciate original language. When we studied Shakespeare he had us build a model of the Globe Theater. He just did things that no other teacher would have thought of doing to get into our minds so that we would begin to understand that writing was something that was important to our lives. I was very very lucky to have had him. He meant the world to me.

The second, because it reminds me that I matter as a writing teacher:

What have your students taught you?
That they need me. They need me and my ilk. They need teachers who value them and their lives. Because writing is a validation of their lives and they know it. Whether they’re writing poetry, essays, or stories, it doesn’t matter. Every writing teacher gives the subliminal message, every time they teach: “Your life counts for something.” In no other subject that I know of is that message given.

I learned nothing new in either of these paragraphs, but I needed reminding.

By the way, I have never heard of Jon Beck Shank until today. A Mormon myself, I’m interested in knowing more.

I Grade; Therefore, I Waste A Lot of Time

By , January 1, 2011 9:27 pm

My son gave me The 4-Hours Workweek to read, and it’s got me thinking. The take away so far is that we need to think outside the 9 – 5 box that employers put us in. The author, Tim Ferris, claims that by planning, implementing deadlines, and eliminating the unnecessary, you can cut your work week back to 4 hours.

Well, among other things, I teach writing. And I grade writing. Ferris’s book has me thinking about how I can serve my students, make my employer happy, and still cut back on the time I spend grading my students’ writing. A few ideas come to mind.

Since I’m an obsessive copy editor, my first order of business is to cut back on the amount of copy editing I do. I’ve tried this before by stopping after a page or two of pointing out comma errors and grammar problems and drawing two lines across the paper to indicate where I stopped. The idea is that since students can only work on so much, they should concentrate on the types of errors I’ve checked above the line. Once they’ve mastered those, the next time around the errors above the lines should be different.

Another idea is to give my students a list of say five or six problems that show up in most writing, and have them work only on them. That way, all I have to look for are those problems.

Finally, and probably the best idea of all, I need to stress peer review in class and out of class more. That way, the burden is on the student. Again, I could give them lists of five or six things to look for in the writing of others. Such repetitive learning should result in mastery of those five or six things.

Imagine how much better everybody’s writing would be if they simply eliminated the passive voice and mastered the comma. Add a more precise word choice and fewer words, and their writing should be singing in short order.

Is a 4-hour workweek in my future? Probably not, but I may be able to cut it to less than 40 hours.

Panorama Theme by Themocracy