Sunday, 4 March 2012

Article for discussion for March 6th

Poll Finds Wide Support for Birth Control Coverage

The close divide in a Senate vote Thursday over whether employers can refuse insurance coverage for contraception mirrors a sharp partisan divide among the public, according to a national poll and interviews with women around the country.
The Election 2012 App

The Election 2012 App

A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.
Over all, 63 percent of Americans said they supported the new federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control, according to the survey of 1,519 Americans, conducted from Feb. 13 to Feb. 19 for the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
While 8 in 10 Democrats said they supported requiring birth control coverage, only 4 in 10 Republicans did. Six in 10 people calling themselves independents voiced approval. Many Americans, in the survey and in independent interviews, expressed impatience with the focus on women’s reproductive issues in an era of economic distress.
Jennifer Meyer, 27, of Sugar Creek, Mo., said in an interview that the current controversy over birth control coverage was “a way for employers to get out of footing the bill by saying they don’t agree with it.” She called herself an independent, but said she was leaning toward Democrats as the “lesser of two evils.”
Mollyann Brodie, director of survey research at the Kaiser foundation, said that since the vast majority of Americans approved of birth control, the divisions over the mandate might be more related to views on federal regulation. “In the end, the answers say more about people’s views on the role of government than on the issue of contraception,” she said.
By a vote of 51 to 48, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday voted down a proposal to overturn the contraception requirement brought by Republicans who call Mr. Obama’s plan an assault on religious liberty.
In January, when the Obama administration announced that religiously affiliated institutions like colleges and hospitals would not be exempted from a requirement that all health plans cover birth control, Roman Catholic bishops said the policy would force them to violate their faith. Evangelical groups and Republican leaders took up the cause and have injected it into the presidential campaign.
Mr. Obama, Democratic leaders and many women’s health advocates say the issue is a matter of basic health care and describe the opposition as part of a broader Republican war on women.
In the poll, the division was largely along partisan lines: 43 percent of Republican women said it was mainly a debate about religious freedom, while only 10 percent of Democratic women did.
Mary McNabb, 61, of Lenoir City, Tenn., said she was a Southern Baptist and was glad to see new attention focused on contraception and the Obama health care plan. She said the mandate was a violation of religious freedom.
“If a Catholic woman wants to take birth control, to go behind her priest’s back, that’s between her and God,” she said. “But I don’t think other Catholics should have to pay for it.”
But she added: “I don’t think they should beat this horse to death. There are other important issues.”
The Kaiser survey found little evidence of a gap between men’s and women’s views of the contraceptive mandate. But it did suggest a significant age gap, especially within theRepublican Party. Just over half of all Republicans ages 18 to 49 supported requiring contraceptive coverage, while only 33 percent of Republicans ages 50 and higher did so.
Despite the campaigns against the mandate by Republicans and conservative religious leaders, fewer than one percent of the people surveyed mentioned women’s health or birth control when asked what issues they most wanted to hear candidates discuss.
Half said they believed the debate over contraception coverage “is mostly being driven by election-year politics,” and interviews with women around the country suggested that many, whatever their politics, think leaders should focus on other matters.
Salonika Evans, 21, a dental hygienist student in Columbus, Ga., called the debate a diversion from the real issue of jobs.
“I am sitting at home eating ramen noodles and everyone in the government is eating filet mignon and talking about birth control, and they are all men,” said Ms. Evans, who calls herself an independent.
Marita Gallaway, 57, a social worker in Marion, Ind., who is against abortion and thinks the federal government is “out of control,” listed the war in Afghanistan, benefits for veterans, the aging population, education and the economy as things that are more important “than who’s going to pay for whose birth control.”
“Those are personal choices and personal issues,” she said. “War is not.”
Still, one in four people in the survey said women’s reproductive health could be an important factor in their choice of political leaders.
Leila Borders, 26, a medical student at Mercer University in Savannah, Ga. who calls herself a conservative Democrat, said, “I feel strongly that the attack that is being made on women’s health through politics is something that our nation will look back on as a dark blemish.”
“In this political climate where those issues are up for legislation,” she said, “a candidate’s stance would certainly determine my vote.”

Article for discussion for March 6th

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57371249-501465/facebook-graffiti-artist-david-choe-from-homeless-to-millions/


Facebook graffiti artist David Choe, from homeless to millions

By
Chenda Ngak
Topics
Tech Talk
(CBS) - Graffiti artist David Choe is hands-down one of the most surprising success stories to come out of the Facebook initial public offering Wednesday.
Choe was hired by then Facebook president Sean Parker to paint a mural at Facebook's first office in Palo Alto in 2005. When the mural was finished, Parker gave Choe the option of taking cash or stock options. At the time, Facebook was only a year old and only open to college and high school students. There was no "like" button, no revenue from advertising and no hype of a $5 billion dollar IPO.
Instead of taking cash, Choe took a chance and opted for the stock options. If you're not familiar with the Silicon Valley culture, gambling on a dot com has either failed miserably or made millionaires out of receptionists.
According to a Facebook employee, Choe was added on as an "adviser" and received 0.1 to 0.25 percent of the company. After you do the math, Choe's share could be worth $200 million. That's a mind-blowing figure, if you also consider that Choe has been homeless since painting that fateful mural.
In the aftermath of Facebook's filing and the value of his share of the social network, Choe took to his blog to express his disbelief.
"Have you had the dream where you ARE this guy?!? And then some kind of happy accident happens, and as you're in the middle of this glorious car crash, you stop to realize, that there is actually no such thing as an accident, and no chance encounters, and that everything has a direct purpose?"
Choe embodies a true tale of an artist's transformation from rags-to-riches in the most dramatic fashion. If Wednesday was a historic day for Facebook, it was also a momentous occasion for the American dream.

Article for discussion for March 6th

Here is the link to the podcast too http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/should-we-abandon-standard-spelling.aspx

This week I’m going to talk about why spelling matters. You’d think this would be obvious, but a prominent opinion piece in Wired sparked a spelling kerfuffle and showed that at least in some academic circles, proper spelling is considered optional.

The podcast edition of this article was sponsored by Audible.com, the Internet's leading provider of audiobooks with more than 100,000 downloadable titles. For a free audiobook of your choice, go tohttp://AudiblePodcast.com/GG.

A Proposal to Do Away with Standard Spelling?

Here’s some background.

Anne Trubek, , an associate professor at Oberlin College, has an opinion piece this month in Wiredmagazine with the title "Proper Spelling? Its Tyme to Let Luce!"

Writers don’t usually get to write the headlines for their articles, and headlines can be misleading, but the bulk of the content in the article also appears to argue for allowing the concept of proper spelling to include multiple phonetic alternatives.

"It Would Be Far Better to Loosen Our Idea of Correct Spelling"

These two sentences will give you an idea of the article's thrust:

“No, autocorrect and spellcheckers are wrongheaded because they reinforce a traditional spelling standard. Consistent spelling was a great way to ensure clarity in the print era. But with new technologies, the way that we write and read (and search and data-mine) is changing, and so must spelling.”

“Instead of trying to get the letters right with imperfect tools, it would be far better to loosen our idea of correct spelling.”

Simplified Spelling?

Another point to clarify is that you might be thinking she was arguing for simplified spelling, which would be changing spelling to be more logical, but which would still have one standard spelling for each word. The simplified spelling movement has a long history and was supported by Benjamin Franklin and Andrew Carnagie, among others, but Trubek specifically addresses this idea in her Wired piece, and it’s clear this isn’t what she’s advocating.

"We Should Be Flexible" About Spelling

One reason I’m hemming and hawing is that I had a frustrating Twitter exchange with her in which she said her argument is being oversimplified. 

On her blog, she says her point is that if  a lot of people start using “l8r” instead of spelling out the word, “later,” then using the text messaging abbreviation doesn’t impede clarity or communication, so “we should be flexible about accepting this variation rather than decry laziness, stupidity, etc.”

From what I can tell, pretty much nobody who wrote about the Wired article or commented on it read it as anything other than a broad argument to loosen spelling standards, but I think it’s only fair to start from what she now says was her point.

Examples of Spellings that Coexist

Before I get to the arguments in favor of standard spelling—which I do favor—I’ll concede a point:

In rare cases, we already have two acceptable spellings for the same word, and they coexist without causing the world to implode.

For example, we have both “advisor” and “adviser,” which most sources say are  interchangeable. We also have the pair “through” and “thru” which seems similar to Trubek’s “later/l8r” example. “Through” is what we use in proper writing, and although it’s common to see “thru” on signs or in advertisements, it makes a lot of people cringe, much as “l8r” would.

So although it’s true, as Trubek says, that when variants are as common as those for “advisor” and “through” using them doesn’t impede clarity or communication, I still believe the existence of multiple alternatives does lead to unnecessary confusion and shouldn’t be something we encourage.

For example, although the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage andGarner's Modern American Usage both say “adviser” (with an “e”) is preferred,Wiktionary, a Wikipedia-like dictionary, says “ 'Adviser' is used more generally to mean someone who is giving advice (what they are doing), whereas 'advisor' is more commonly used when it means the primary role (what they are), such as job title, etc."

I’ll take Garner’s and Merriam-Webster’s advice over Wiktionary any day, but the point is that the existence of two acceptable spellings creates confusion. People actually write to ask me how to properly spell "advisor/adviser" pretty regularly and “thru/through” comes up quite often too.

Spelling Serves a Purpose

Sure, English spelling is often confusing and seems illogical, but proper spelling serves many good purposes.

Clarity. As Trubek conceded in her article, proper spelling "enables readers to understand writing, to aid communication and ensure clarity," and those seem like awfully good reasons for keeping it to me.

Computer Interpretation. Lee Simmons, Wired's copyeditor, wrote a clear rebuttal to the article (can you even imagine the outrage when this piece hit the copydesk?) and pointed out that computers are pretty bad at figuring out what we mean from context, so poor spelling is actually more important in a digital world, not less as Trubek suggests.

Understandable Contracts. I briefly discussed the Wired article in an interviewwith Scott Able of Content Wrangler and Val Swisher of Content Rules, Inc. and Scott made the excellent point that accepting loose spelling could be a nightmare in legal contexts, where clear and precise meanings are essential. We should definitely stick to standard spelling for laws and contracts.

A Common Context. In the comments section at WiredStanley F. Quaylemade the excellent point that using nonstandard spellings makes it more difficult for people who aren’t native English speakers—he says the text messaging abbreviation “l8ter” to mean “later” currently means nothing to people in Europe and Asia who speak English as a second language. Just because an alternate spelling becomes commonplace in America doesn’t mean it will be understood worldwide.

Speed. Finally, as I pointed out on Twitter, my reading speed is significantly slowed when I come across nonstandard spellings, such as the ones in this sentence in the article: "Who shud tell us how to spel?” Trubek seemed to think that is a good thing: when I made this point she responded, "maybe, by slowing down, some think about language in a new way about conventions—how they evolve & how they will change."

I think language change is fascinating and generally a good thing, but at this point I just threw up my hands and realized that Trubek and I are never going to agree about spelling.

What do you think? How would you feel if you saw journalists or students use common abbreviations such as “u” for “you” or “l8r” for “later” in articles or papers. High school and college teachers tell me they’ve seen such abbreviations in student essays, which I’ll repeat I’m firmly against. (Do not try this at school; I think most teachers are on my side.)