Archive for July, 2009

h1

126: For Writers: ‘Hint’ Fiction Anthology

July 30, 2009

See //www.robertswartwood.com/?page_id=8, or navigate to “Hint” via Duotrope.com.

Hint fiction (n) : a story of 25 words or fewer that suggests a larger, more complex story — an idea that should intrigue any writer. Take a look!

Anthology Guidelines

Tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2010, W.W. Norton will publish an anthology of Hint Fiction. The thesis of the anthology is to prove that a story 25 words or less can have as much impact as a story 2,500 words or longer. The anthology will include between 100 and 150 stories.

It’s possible to write a complete story in 25 words or less — a beginning, middle, end — but that’s not Hint Fiction.

Payment is $25 per story for World and Audio rights.

See details of submission requirements and procedures via the link above.

<END>

h1

125: “Popullution”

July 30, 2009

“Popullution” = population pollution = the pollution of our planet that has come about through irresponsible human breeding.

<END>

h1

124: Belief Cannot Be in Error

July 30, 2009

Belief cannot be in error.

When you say “I believe p” (where p is some proposition, as in “I believe Earth’s climate is warming”) you could be lying, but you cannot be in error, as you are reporting on the contents of your mind. You are definitively in charge of deciding what’s in your own mind. “I believe…” is therefore the strongest statement you can make.

Even at the extreme, as in “I believe that people with ray-guns are chasing me”, you, again, could be lying about your beliefs, but if you are not, then you must be making a factually correct statement about what’s in your head.

There are two complications:

1) Performative statements, such as “I believe in God the father almighty” said as a formal part of a church ceremony, are irrelevant to actual mental conviction, and so constitute an exception.

2) More tellingly, is saying “I believe p” any different from merely uttering the proposition itself? Saying “p” implies that one believes p unless, again, one is lying. Therefore, the “I believe…” part of the statement is otiose. It would be odd and perhaps contradictory, for example, to say something like “Earth’s climate is warming, but I don’t believe it.”

<END>

h1

123: Trash People

July 30, 2009

The following article, which has been abridged, appeared in www.delmarvanow.com, posted 27 July, 2009 (without copyright notice). This appalling item is worth reading both for what it reports, and for what it does not.

A staff member at a state-run juvenile detention center “created mass chaos” when she opened a cottage door, allowing several angry teenage boys into a building where youths were fighting with staff, according to an internal report obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

As the violence escalated, more staff members were assaulted and 14 youths escaped from the Victor Cullen Center near Sabillasville, according the report by the Department of Juvenile Services’ inspector general’s office. Six staff members sought medical attention after the melee on the night of May 27.

The staffer who opened the cottage door, letting in excited youths from a neighboring cottage, later lied to investigators by saying a co-worker told her to open it, the report says. Actually, her supervisor had ordered her not to open it, investigators found.

The staffer, whose named was redacted from the report obtained by the AP through a Public Information Act request, received the harshest criticism among six workers who were recommended for discipline.

“Her actions created mass chaos and danger in an already unstable cottage environment, as well as placing the safety and security of the entire campus in a compromising and perilous position,” the investigators found.

Six Victor Cullen employees were disciplined for the incident, according to another report released last week by the Maryland Juvenile Justice Monitor, a division of the attorney general’s office. The workers’ union says one of them was fired.

The union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, is appealing the disciplinary actions.

The inspector general’s report, dated June 22, faults a second staffer for allowing a youth more than his allotted 10 minutes on the telephone. The violence began when the boy punched the man when he tried to take back the phone, according to the report.

The report recommends that the campus supervisor be disciplined for failing to provide direction as youths struck staff members with fists and furniture, grabbed handcuffs and seized a two-way radio to broadcast taunting messages.

“Although not negligent, she was ineffective as a leader and participant in this incident,” the report states.

A fourth staffer was cited for leaving the cottage and abandoning his peers after a youth spit in his face several times.

“He should have been able to maintain control of his anger for the benefit of the team and recognize that his assistance was paramount,” the investigators wrote.

A fifth staffer was faulted for failing to notify others when she left the most troublesome cottage, called Rutledge, to check on a co-worker who had been assaulted by youth in the neighboring Raine cottage. As she opened the door to Raine, some of the boys ran out and into Rutledge, investigators found.

“She should have requested assistance to enter Raine for her own safety and the safety of others,” the report states.

The staffer who was assaulted in Raine was faulted for inattentiveness to the rising excitement among youth in his own cottage as he watched the fight in Rutledge through a window.

“He stood for nearly eight minutes prior to his assault, along with youth beside and behind him, watching the incident transpiring on Rutledge. Youth were able to take possession of his radio,” the report states.

<END>

h1

122: “Enjoy”

July 30, 2009

“Enjoy” is a transitive verb, that it, it takes an object. For example, in “Enjoy your spinach,” ‘spinach’ is the object, whether or not you actually enjoy it.

Used as an intransitive verb (“Enjoy!”) it was cute at first, but has long outlived its cuteness and is now merely a bore.

<END>

h1

121: “Homosexual” and “Heterosexual”

July 30, 2009

Both these terms are unfortunate, because they focus on the sexual aspect of a person in whom, perhaps, sex has only a small role.

There are problems with “straight”, too (are the others “bent”?) and “gay” (but some are morose.)

See the Scientific American article “Equal right to kiss? Why you may be disgusted by gay behavior without knowing it”, at www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=unconscious-disgust-gay-behavior&sc=DD  20090618 (posted 18 June 2009 on www.sciam.com).

(Is all ‘gay behavior’ sexual?)

<END>

h1

120: Taxing Health Benefits

July 23, 2009

Yes, but not the way it’s being spoken for (and against) in Congress.

When Congress talks about “taxing health benefits”, they mean taxing the amount your employer pays the insurance industry to cover your visits to doctors and hospitals. If these amounts weren’t paid out as insurance, they would (in theory) be available to increase your salary. So some part of those amounts, at least, should be taxed as salary. Right?

Wrong. If my employer pays, say, $3000 a year in insurance premiums for me, and I require no medical visits or treatment in that year, I’m out $3000. I have received no real benefits, only a contingent benefit where the contingency never happened.

In terms of motivation, since I see all that money going out, I’m going to be sure to get a benefit — get my money’s worth. So I have every reason to see a physician over some small complaint, or let my arm get twisted to agree to a minor operation I don’t really need, just so I’m not a sucker who’s just lost a $3000 bet. Maybe I’ll “win the lottery” and use up $6000 in medical costs. I just doubled my money. Right?

The motivation here is all going the wrong way. We do need to tax health benefits, but in a way that will induce people to reduce demand to what’s really needed, and bring down the overall cost of health care for the whole country.

The way to do this is to tax actual benefits, and the simplest way to do this is to add $10 (say) to the $10 or $20 you already co-pay when you get attention from medical professionals. The tax could pay for essential treatment for people who have no insurance, improve public health, subsidize medical research, etc. — whatever medical need is greatest. This co-co-pay wouldn’t fund all medical needs, but it would make a major contribution.

<END>

h1

119: “One of the only”

July 23, 2009

For many years, “one of the few” has been an accepted and harmless idiom, as in “one of the few hitters who batted .300 over several seasons.” But recently this expression has been partially supplanted by “one of the only”, meaning, apparently, one of the few.

There’s something wrong with “one of the only.” ‘Only’ means ‘one-ly’: the only one; singular; unique. Could something be just one of a group of one that’s more than one?

I think what’s happened is that “one of the few” met up with “the one and only” and gave birth to a bastard child called “one of the only.”

However it came about, “one of the only” is an illogical and illiterate expression, and shows whoever utters it to be thoroughly confused.

<END>

h1

118: Against Secrecy

July 9, 2009

Secrecy is an evil. It not only (obviously) interferes with the free flow of information, it also corrodes much of our interaction with other human beings. Secrecy is a kind of cheating.

Worse, because of all-pervading secrecy, most of us erroneously assume that most of us are honest, trustworthy, truthful, faithful … all the Boy Scout virtues. When someone, famous politician or not, is ‘found out’, shock and disgust follow. But we are all like that, aren’t we? Because we’re human. Disregarding a few saints (who may have spiritual secrets of their own), we are all, as the old phrase goes, “no better than we ought to be.”

Advocates of secrecy have two major arguments:

1) Danger: Some information is so dangerous it must be kept secret. Consider this (fictional) secret: “How to brew a deadly and undetectable poison from common household chemicals.” Shouldn’t this information be kept secret?

Yes, but not only from you and me; from everyone. No one should know this information, not merely those who claim to have the welfare of all of us as their dearest wish (and who would that be? governments? oh, really?)

2) Information overload: To be told everything is to be overwhelmed with information, most of it trivial and pointless. A thought experiment: You are sitting on a commuter bus where, in the seat directly behind you, someone is talking loudly and endlessly about his operations, job, or grandchildren; perhaps all three. Don’t you just wish he would keep this information to himself? Keep it ‘secret’?

The solution here is to have our own information filters: scan everything; take in whatever we want; ignore the rest. In the instant situation, a pair of good earplugs is advisable (whenever you use mass transit, actually). Except in a business meeting where you’re required to pay attention, or at a cocktail party you can’t avoid, a wide variety of filters are available, including just staying away. Use them.

Consider the red-light traffic camera: It works (reduces traffic accidents) only if people know it’s there. Nuclear weapons only work for a state (contribute to its power) if other states know it’s there. (Consider how carefully Israel has let it be supposed that they have nuclear weapons, even if they won’t admit it publicly.)

<END>

h1

117: Motives

July 9, 2009

You have heard it asked “Are you questioning my motives?”, as if there were something wrong with this. And the conventional answer is “No; of course not. I certainly wouldn’t do that.”

Consider: Our motives guide our actions; they have grown up with us and are an essential part of who each of us is. You cannot understand another person without knowing, at least to some extent, his motives. To ignore motives is to deal with persons as if they were machines. Perhaps some people would prefer to be (treated as) machines. For the rest of us, inquiry as to motives is always germane.

Do we always understand our motives? Of course not. At times, other people know our motives better than we do. But the impossible goal of knowing our own minds should never be abandoned. Dialog with others can help make it so.

<END>

h1

116: More Comma Abuse

July 9, 2009

From the brochure “Playing It Safe on the W&OD Trail”:

“Always look ahead for obstacles such as gates, potholes and other trail users, etc.”

You didn’t know that potholes were considered trail users? Reluctance to place a comma before the “and” in a list of three or more items often results in ludicrous statements such as this.

More seriously, such (mis-)usage often results in ambiguity, confusion, and loss of meaning.

Consider how professional speakers (such as TV and radio news reporters) almost always pause before the “and” in these cases; they are mentally inserting the comma, exactly where it should be.

<END>

h1

115: “Junior” and “Senior”

July 9, 2009

Brian Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day (7 July 2009) holds, in part:

“ ‘Jr.’ and ‘Sr.’ aren’t used unless the names are identical. So the second Bush president (George W[alker] Bush) is not a junior, the father’s name being George Herbert Walker Bush. But some journalists use ‘Jr.’ and ‘Sr.’ as a kind of loose shorthand {Bush Sr. / Bush Jr.}.”

“When the names are identical” is a matter of context: how the names are spoken or written in a particular book, broadcast, etc. Although Garner is correct that “George W. Bush” should not be written “George W. Bush, Jr.” (because the elder Bush is not “George W.”, but “George H.W.”), the following pair should be acceptable:

George Bush, Sr.

George Bush, Jr.

It is only in contexts that include middle names or initials that the names, as written, become un-identical. Therefore, the “loose shorthand” is correct.

<END>

h1

114: Truth in Spoofing

July 9, 2009

Received 06 July 09: Email “Restoring password — press to go to site.”

The email was from someone named “Swindle Kraig.” Tends to make one suspicious.

<END>