Showing posts with label tics and quirks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tics and quirks. Show all posts

My Favorite Things Michigan

If you've been following this as casually as I've been updating it, you may or may not know that I'm a huge admirer of Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabbarok's economics blog Marginal Revolution. If not, I recommend you check it out--and don't be fooled by the "economics blog" description--Tyler and Alex both have the ability to boil down the many complexities of economics into general, effective, everyday language.

Among the vast and varied number of subjects discussed, one of the best is "My Favorite Things..." a tag used by the two that covers the cultural highlights of a particular city, state, or country. And since neither of the two has gotten around to covering Michigan, my beloved home state, I figured I'd offer my own.

Favorite food: Gotta go with the obvious: Farmer's Home Cheeseburger. Behind that, Mackinac Island Fudge is overrated but still very tasty (it is fudge). There's also the pasties, which get better the farther north you are. The vineyards around the 45th parallel make a big deal about their wine, and some of it is excellent. I've found that any winery that also makes cheese can be relied on for delivering a good white.


City: Saginaw is a shell of its former self, and of the Tri-City area, I prefer Midland. Grand Rapids is nice, at least to visit, the same goes for Traverse City, and, in my experience, all of the UP. Detroit and Ann Arbor are nice, too, at least the, um, nice parts of them. While everyone focuses on the Detroit area, though, I think some of the best parts are farther north--anywhere near water is a plus.


Lake: Duh.


Author: There's a lot of local mystery writers based in the upper Lower Peninsula who've garnered much acclaim, but I'm ignorant of their work; so here's the big ones: I don't think anyone reads Theodore Roethke unless at gunpoint. I don't like Mitch Albom, and Elmore Leonard was born in Louisiana. Don't know much Joyce Carol Oates but would like to. Jeffrey Eugenides is a Nobel-Prize winner, but I didin't care much for Middlesex. Edna Ferber I haven't read. I think I'm biased against my home state. Yikes! My picks are Chris van Allsburg (born in Grand Rapids) and, though she was born in Canada, I can't not mention Isabel Patterson.


Novels: Need I mention the Michigan connection to the Nick Adams stories? The Time Traveler's Wife is set in South Haven, though I haven't read it (the book, that is, not South Haven, though I don't suppose I've "read" that either), and many of Elmore Leonard's novels take place in Michigan. Anatomy of a Murder is still a fun read.


Movie, set in: My personal favorite film, Anatomy of a Murder. I really liked Gran Torino and have a very, very soft spot for Street BossNever got into Grosse Pointe Blank. Beverley Hills Cop deserves mention, but the best parts take place in California. The reverse is true of Hardcore and True Romance. Tucker: The Man and His Dream is very underrated.


Director: This is a whollop of trivia. Did you know Francis Ford Coppola, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Roger Corman were all born in Detroit? Add to the natives as Sam Raimi, McG, and, of course, Michael Moore (I don't like his politics, but Roger & Me is a fantastic look at small-town life, and Moore at least is willing to put his money where his mouth is). Also, Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, also the creator of Freaks and Geeks, and he directed a plethora of Office [U.S.] episodes, Arrested Development episodes, Weeds and Parks and Recreation) was born in Royal Oak. Paul Schrader, author of Scorsese's best films Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and The Last Temptation of Christ and director of the film Hardcore, whose scene of George C. Scott breaking down and saying "No" has become an Internet sensation) was from Grand Rapids. But the award should go to Robert Flaherty, director of Nanook of the North -- makes sense for a Yooper born in Iron Mountain.


Television program, set in: Freak and Geeks


Actor: Bruce Campbell is not really that funny on his own. Ed McMahon I appreciate more for his inspiring Hank Kingsley. Taylor Lautner, Bob Eubanks, Casey Kasem, Dave Coulier, and Tim Allen are all rote (Grand Rapids, Detroit, Flint, St. Clair Shores, and Birmingham, respectively). Give me Selma Blair in Hellboy (Southfield), Sandra Bernhard -- Season 6 of Roseanne -- (Flint) -- but, most of all, Kristen Bell in Veronica Mars. Also have Judge Mathis and Jeff Daniels, the latter of whom is a serious contender. Escanaba in da Moonlight is pretty fun.


Musician: I'm not a huge Stevie Wonder fan, but he deserves a nod. There's also, of course, Motown, the Four Tops and The Temptations being some obvious, if not generic, choices. I love the best bits of Eminem and Madonna, as well as Iggy Pop and Sufjan Stevens. And we can't forget Bill Haley. But I think Al Green probably takes it.


Artist: Irving Couse is well known but it seems only within his own circles. He reminds me of Gerome.


Gamer: Sid Meier was born in Detroit. Civ 2 is his masterpiece.


Economist: I'm at a loss here. Though Robert Shiller was born in Detroit.


Entrepreneur: Duh. Though Herbert Doan was a wonderful and very, very intelligent man. Will Kellogg deserves mention, too.


The bottom line: When I think of cuisine I think of the UP, but the fudge and pasties don't do much for me. Michigan is a game wonderland, yet it's never embraced that fact. Pheasant, grouse, and venison should be key ingredients in the food, but they're ignored.  It seems the best people who came out of Michigan left it pretty soon, my self, my sister, my girlfriend, and one of my closest friends included. Nevertheless, if you go by the people organically grown, Michigan may be one of the greatest states, culturally speaking, out there. Charles Lindbergh (born in Detroit) belongs somewhere, too. Must be something in the waters.

Read More...

Criminal Word Origins

From the start, to tip meant to give somebody money, but four hundred years ago the money was given for a slightly different reason. It was part of the thieves' cant, a language used by the criminal underworld in Britain. You've probably used some of their secret code words today. The verb to "tout," which now means "praise something highly" started out meaning "to keep lookout and warn everybody if you saw the one time coming." They even gave us the idea to use "kid" to mean to joke with somebody (to them, it was treating somebody like a child).

Read more here. The first few are actually more surprising.

Read More...

cease and decease

Here's one for you: If "cease" means, "to stop; discontinue," and the prefix "de" means, "removal, separation, negation, etc." then shouldn't "decease" mean the negation of cessation?

Read More...

he's not right on the money

I take on corporate giant Michael Moore in my review of Capitalism: A Love Story, read it here.

Read More...

notes on goats

From Wikipedia:

Female goats are referred to as does or nannies, intact males as bucks or billies; their offspring are kids. Castrated males are wethers. Goat meat from younger animals is called kid or cabrito, and from older animals is sometimes called chevon, or in some areas “mutton.”

Read More...

conference call


Yesterday my friend Kyle called me to ask which would be more appropriate to write on a card: "Congratulations on graduating" or "Congratulations for graduating."

Me: Well, this is just off the cuff, but I'd say "for"; "for" makes it clear that the congratulations are given because the person graduated. "Congratulations on graduating," implies the same thing, but doesn't make it quite as explicit as to what you're congratulating the person for.

Kyle: That's what I said. By the way, I have you on speaker phone.

Kyle's Boss: So you say "for"?

Kyle's Intern: Yeah, but what about, "Congratulations on graduation day"?

Me: Well, with that you could be implying that you offer the person congratulations for something other than graduating. That make sense?

Kyle; Kyle's Boss; Kyle's Intern:...


Me: Uh, like, with "Congratulations on graduation day," you're just saying you give them congratulations on that specific day. You don't specify what the congratulations are for; you just specify when you're giving them--you could be congratulating them for baking a cake or existing or slaughtering a hen--anything.

Kyle; Kyle's Boss; Kyle's Intern:...okay...

Me: Though now that I think about it, "Congratulations for graduating" doesn't sound very good...

Kyle's Boss: Well, I can't rewrite too much because I already wrote "Congratulations" on the card.

Kyle: That's why we called you.

Kyle's Boss: Why not just "Congratulations [the name of the person graduating]"?

Me: That sounds better--even though you don't specify what the congratulations are for--though it's pretty obvious...

Kyle's Boss: Okay, good. And comma after "Congratulations," yes?

Me: Yup--and be sure to spell it "C-O-N-G-R-A-T-U-L-A-T-I-O-N-S," not "C-O-N-G-R-A-D-U-L-A-T-I-O-N-S."

Kyle: Awesome, dude, thanks.

Me: And I'd just like to say how great it is that we had this conference solely for the purpose of not having to buy another $4 card when the time and energy we just wasted was probably much more than...

*click*

Read More...

how important is good grammar?

Penelope Trunk @ Brazen Careerist has an interesting post on grammar; I like these sentences:

Most grammar rules don’t matter, though. That is, if you get them wrong, the reader still can find the meaning.


Whether the particulars are true or not, I agree with the main idea: The best way to write is whatever gets your point across. (And yes, I'm aware of the grammatical failings of that statement.)

And grammar and spelling and the rules of the English language aren't as important as many people make them out to be (especially some of her commentors--ouch!) -- for many of the reasons she cites, and, I'd also add, because they're always changing. Case in point: "Today" used to be spelled with a hyphen.

Something I do quibble with, and at least one commenter pointed this out, too, are the two "grammar" errors in the statement
Over 28,000 children drew doodles for our homepage.

Vote for the one that will appear here!


According to Penelope,
The AP Stylebook says "over" is a way to move—a preposition. And “more than” must precede a number. Also, if you are voting for one, specific doodle, then the AP Stylebook tells you to use “which” rather than “that.”


They're not so much grammatical errors as they are inconsistencies with the AP Stylebook. (And if it's true that the AP Stylebook was set up to minimize printing costs, "over" would seem more correct than "more than.")

Despite that, I get her point:
Anyway, if Google is deciding that these rules are no longer useful guidelines, then we can all follow suit. And if you don’t, you risk being more newspaper and less Internet, and we know where that’s going to put your career…

Read More...

i.e. vs. e.g.

e.g. is Latin for "exempli gratia" -- for example

i.e. is Latin for "id est" -- that is

Both are used for clarification, but they're not interchangeable.

The use of e.g. should be followed by examples, for example, in the sentence

Be sure to eat your vegetables, e.g. carrots, peas, and lettuce.


The use of i.e. should be followed by a rephrasing of the statement, that is to say you don't list a series of examples, rather you reword and perhaps elaborate on what you said to make it easier to understand.

But it can get confusing when someone rephrases a statement by making an analogy, e.g.
It's like writing a book of poetry, i.e. it's like dropping a rose petal down the Grand Canyon and waiting for the echo.


I'm not sure why this would throw many people off, but apparently it does, probably because analogies tend to be abstract, and when you're being abstract for the sake of clarification, well, much like that sentence, you look ridiculous.

The way I tell them apart is by substituting "such as" for "e.g." (just another reason to read rule v of the greatest treatise on writing there is), that usually makes it clear whether you're reading examples or a rephrasing.

If you still have trouble, you probably shouldn't be using the terms in the first place, i.e. you're a buffoon, e.g. an ape, a mongoloid, a fool.

Read More...

punctuation ellipsis

Generally you omit punctuation from either side of an ellipsis. You can get away with leaving it in (and sometimes it's better to if the sentence is confusing without it), but I prefer not to because it looks pretty unsightly.

However there are some times when it's best to keep the punctuation in--a series, for example:

Into the room walked my friend Bob,...a philanderer,...and a mopist.


Or when it helps to clarify the sentence structure. My style guide gives this example from the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to...establish Justice,...and secure the Blessings of Liberty..., do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


And in case you're wondering why the comma in the second ellipsis is on the right (following Justice) and the comma in the third ellipsis is on the left (following the ellipsis), it's because you keep the punctuation of the original quote. In the original, there's a comma immediately after Justice, but not one immediately after Liberty--however, there is one after all the stuff we cut after Liberty.

Read More...

how to speak grammongoloid

"No longer will we adhere to the dull, predictable structure of our traditional grammar system. This nation will now begin speaking, writing and listening to something fresh, exciting and different," said Clinton.

"Excuse me," added he pause long after a. "Meant I, the dull, predictable system our traditional grammar of adhere to no longer will we. Speaking, writing and listening to something fresh, exciting and different will this nation now begin."


More here.

Read More...

double space after hyphens

If you're writing for publication (though it pretty much applies anywhere) don't worry about it; single space is fine.

The same goes for after a period, question or exclamation mark.

The programs we and most other places use to design the publication set spaces their own way, and they give words plenty of room to breathe.

Read More...

should questions have quote marks?

When they're quoted dialogue, then yes:

Marvin Gaye famously asked, "What's going on?"


Otherwise, no.
The question is, What's going on?

Read More...

when to capitalize quotations

If you're quoting directly, the first word should be capitalized:

Jeff Harris said, "I don't know what I was on."


If you break up the quote, the first word of the second part is lowercase:
"Why that show Diff'rent Strokes was so popular, I have no clue," said Harris, "and it's an even greater mystery that The Facts of Life had a longer run."


Now, say the quote syntactically depends on the sentence it's in, in that case, the first word in the quote is lowercase:
Just like in real life, "we took the good, we took the bad."

Read More...

inclusive numbers

OH MY GOD THIS IS SOOOOO BORING--but it has to be done, so when you feel like driving an iron spike through your brain (hint: enter through something squishy, like your eye or nose!), just glance over at the adorable kittens until you're ready to resume.

Ready?

Let's do this.

Inclusive numbers are used to indicate a range of numbers, such as a range of years or the pages of a book. This range is typically indicated by the word "to" or a hyphen or en dash, all three mean, "up to and including":

  • World War II spanned from 1939 to 1945
  • Read chapters 3-7 for homework
  • On a scale of 1-10, I'd give her Shaunna's mom a [expletive deleted]
Believe it or not, there are rules for when to use "to" and when to use a hyphen or en dash. If the numbers are used after the words "from" or "between," you're not supposed to use a hyphen or en dash, so:
  • From 6:00 to 7:30 I waited not From 6:00-7:30 I waited
  • The project was between 60 and 80 percent complete not The project was between 60-80 percent complete
  • But Carrie's mom is somewhere between a slap on the [expletive deleted] and my tongue over her [expletive deleted] not But Carrie's mom is somewhere between a slap on the [expletive deleted]-tongue over her [expletive deleted].
Oftentimes you can omit a few of the numbers, too. Like if you're talking about a range of years in the 20th century, instead of writing out "1920-1975" you can write it as "1920-75." Because the years in our range both begin with "19," you can drop (or, as the style guide will say, "elide") that second 19.

Unfortunately, there's a bunch of rules regarding omissions, too.

For one, you can't omit numbers when there's only two digits. So you can't write, "Read pages 24 to 6"; you have to write, "Read pages 24 to 26."

You also can't omit numbers when the first number ends in 00: "300-309" is correct; "300-09" is not...and neither is "300-9."

Finally, you can't omit the tens digit from the latter number. I have no idea how to explain this, so I'll just use an example:
  • 123-26 not 123-6
  • 5,000,792-97 not 5,000,792-7
However, you're supposed to omit the tens digit when it's 0. So "302-6" is right; "302-06" is wrong.

That's about it. If you haven't already killed yourself, enjoy another adorable kitten:

Read More...

past tense of sneak

Renée Montagne used "snuck" in a newscast on NPR this morning. It seemed kind of odd to us because we always thought "snuck" was the incorrect past tense of "sneak." Evidently it's not, as dictionary.com cites the past-tense conjugation of sneak as both "sneaked" and "snuck."

Here's more:

Snuck is an Americanism first introduced in the 19th century as a nonstandard regional variant of sneaked. Widespread use of snuck has become more common with every generation. It is now used by educated speakers in all regions. Formal written English is more conservative than other varieties, of course, and here snuck still meets with much resistance. Many writers and editors have a lingering unease about the form, particularly if they recall its nonstandard origins. And 67 percent of the Usage Panel disapproved of snuck in our 1988 survey. Nevertheless, an examination of recent sources shows that snuck is sneaking up on sneaked. Snuck was almost 20 percent more common in newspaper articles published in 1995 than it was in 1985.

Read More...

Everything Communicates

[At the local grocery; notices a familiar tune]

Checkout Woman: Ahh, you heard it.

We: Yeah--is that the Windows Theme?

CW: Yup. Up on the automatic checkout.

We: I didn't know these were Windows based.

CW: Oh yeah, that's why we always have to shut 'em down and reboot 'em when they misbehave.

We: Misbehave?

CW: Yeah. Sometimes we have to punish them, so we keep them shut off for longer to punish 'em. They don't like that.

We: Why not?

CW: Oh, they like to talk to each other, so when they're shut down they can't, and they don't like that.

We: What do they say when they talk to each other?

CW: They compare sales.

We: Huh. [takes bags and heads toward exit.]

CW: You be safe.

Read More...

Lie buried

Sheer stubborn ignorance and unwillingness to learn on the part of some producers or consumers may be such an obstacle. But a more frequent form of obstacle is to be found in institutional prohibitions of the full use of whatever knowledge is already available.
--Ludwig Lachmann
Students: How often have your teachers instructed this: "Minimum of X sources. No more than Y Internet sources."

It's 2008. The Internet's been in widespread use for about 14 years now. Not only has everyone even in their 40s grown up with it, everyone with access to a computer has gotten used to it by now. We're no longer thrilled by e-mail or AIM or even streaming video; the Internet has expanded, and, simply evidenced by the enormous rise in and (perhaps especially) the wondrous prevalence of innovative porn fetishes, what reason now is there to think it's not only a fine substitute for print, but a superior one to boot?

We mentioned this to our boss, and he suggested, in line with most wary teachers we can recall, that the Internet isn't as trustworthy as something printed in a book, because anybody can write anything on the Internet. This, so far as we know, is the only argument against Internet sources, and we don't find it convincing--anyone can publish a book on anything, too--it just costs more than publishing something on the Internet; that doesn't make the source reliable, it just means someone was willing to bear a higher cost.

Granted, it is easy to post something on the Internet, but that's precisely what makes it so valuable: Access. Both libraries and the Internet serve the same purpose: to provide access to information; and teachers and librarians can moan all they want, but there's more on the Internet than is likely to be found in the local school and public libraries--and barring its use to favor the poorly stocked, run-down, and forsaken municipal repositories is no different from vulgar protectionism: It discourages the pursuit of knowledge for no decent or well-intended purpose and in so doing flagrantly defies every just principle of education--and incidentally, if, by the time you're writing research papers, you haven't been taught to differentiate between the trustworthiness of a renowned scholar's pdf'd essay and some snide polemical blog, the far, far more important issue should become the trustworthiness of your teachers.

Having more options is never a bad thing. Yes, the Internet is full of nonsense, but 1) so are most libraries (who classify as Nonfiction the "scholarly" works of Morgan Spurlock, the guy who made his bones paying the homeless to eat dog shit) and 2) educators still do no service to their students by prohibiting it; if anything they should encourage further Internet research so, amid a vast and greater ocean of sources, thoughts, and schemes, students can learn invaluable research-discrimination skills -- a very important lesson in trust.

To be fair, some teachers have integrated technology and data prep into their librarical duties, and that's not only the higher road, it's also the smarter path, but the rest, while we'd like to call them good-old-fashioned luddites, we think there's something more sinister at work than a simple aversion to technology (and that itself is hardly an excuse: Why should a teacher ever have an aversion to learning something?). We think it’s the growing obsolescence of the high school and local library, maybe even the college library, and if (or rather when) the Internet overtakes them, it’ll mean less funding (well, theoretically).

Teachers' and especially librarians' jobs stand to be out-competed, so it’s only natural that they try to downplay the efficiency of the Internet and free access to information to favor wasteful and unnecessary school spending. We're trying not to moralize here, but it is hypocritical--we can’t resist taking a jab at some of the high-and-mighty teachers who keep squawking about the importance of education and then grade down for doing extra research.

Read More...

Never Have You Always

Ms. Speaker: I've always wondered why you eat lunch at ten.

We: That's impossible; you've known we only three years.

Ms. Speaker: [Confused look] ...?

We: You couldn't possibly have always known that we eat lunch at ten when you've known we only three years. There's a gap of twenty-some years when you probably didn't even know that we existed--Always connotes forever, but since you haven't known we forever, your claim of always wondering something about we is impossible.

Ms. Speaker: Okay: Have you always been such a little %$#@?

Read More...

Switch Itch

Co-Worker: Let me itch myself.

We: Don't you mean Scratch? You scratch an itch, right? You don't itch an itch or else it'll get itchier.

[Co-Worker stares blankly]

We: It's like when people say Gross when they mean Scary, right?

Co-Worker:
Well, maybe they're talking about blood and guts and stuff like that.

We: No, no, when there's no blood or gore--when the emotion they're feeling is clearly Fear, and instead of saying, "Yikes!" or "Ahh!" they say, "Gross!"

Co-Worker: Okay...

We: But substituting Scratch with Itch is even worse, right? Because they have opposite meanings. What sense is it to have the noun mean one thing and the verb its opposite?

Co-Worker: Right.

Read More...

Co-Worker: [Looking at an image of a rattlesnake] Gross!

We: Gross? Don't you mean Scary?

Co-Worker: Well it is scary. I guess if I saw his insides, that'd be more gross.

We: A lot of people do that--say Gross when they're scared, or at least when they see something scary.

Co-Worker: Well, Gross is a pretty encompassing word.

We: Yeah, but why not just say Repulsive?

Co-Worker: Gross is easier to say. It takes too long to say Repulsive. And if I saw a rattlesnake, I'd be more worried about getting away than anything else.

We: Even clarity?

Co-Worker: I'm afraid so.

Read More...