Saturday, January 28, 2012

List of Homes on Dallas Modern Home Tour ... 2012Jan28


Dallas Modern Home Tour
On Saturday, January 28, 2012, the first ever Dallas Modern Home Tour will take place. Nearly 10 architecturally progressive and contemporary homes in central Dallas will open their doors from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. The self-guided driving tour will feature innovative homes that exemplify modern living, addressing issues from sustainability to ergonomics.
Discover how homes are pushing the boundaries of design by incorporating recycled materials, rainwater collection systems and natural ventilation while maintaining the clean lines, simple shapes, and lightness associated with the Modern architecture movement.
Ingrid Spencer, former managing editor and current contributing editor for Architectural Record magazine in New York City, curated the following homes for the Dallas Modern Home Tour:

  • 4311 Middleton Road, Dallas, TX, 75229
  • 3602 Hillside Drive, Dallas, TX, 75214
  • 8627 Midway Road, Dallas, TX 75209
  • 8637 Redondo Drive, Dallas, TX 75218
  • 5706 Watson Circle, Dallas, TX 75225
  • 4445 College Park Drive, Dallas, TX 75229
  • 4214 Shorecrest Drive, Dallas, TX 75209
  • 9839 Rockbrook Drive, Dallas, TX 75220
  • 5910 Timber Wolf Trail, Plano, TX 75093

Tickets purchased in advance can be picked up at designated will call locations (the homes on Redondo, College Park, and Shorecrest). Tickets will also be available at select properties for $30 the day of the tour.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

What if Insurers Didn’t Pay for Crashes Caused by Texting? By ANN CARRNS

JANUARY 10, 2012, 11:00 AM

What if Insurers Didn’t Pay for Crashes Caused by Texting? By ANN CARRNS

Associated PressA 2010 texting-related crash in Missouri.
Last month, the National Transportation Safety Board called for a nationwide ban on the use of cellphones and other “portable electronic devices” while driving.
“It is time for all of us to stand up for safety by turning off electronic devices when driving,” the board’s chairman, Deborah A.P. Hersman, said in a statement.
It’s uncertain whether the board’s call will be heeded, given the public’s addiction to instant electronic communication, any time and anywhere. But the proposal has generated discussion. One provocative idea was floated by a man from Boulder, Colo. He suggested, in a letter published in The Wall Street Journal, that insurance companies could curtail distracted driving if they simply refused to pay claims for accidents caused by texting. (Many states specifically ban texting while driving, but enforcement varies.)
That sounded like an intriguing proposal to us here at Bucks — one that could be applied to all sorts of bad driving behavior, including drunken driving.
The idea, though, seems to be a nonstarter. Insurance companies, and even a consumer advocate, make the point that coverage for injuries to yourself or others as a result of an accident — even one caused by careless or just plain stupid behavior — is one of the main reasons to buy insurance in the first place.
“An accident is an accident,” says Mark Romano, an insurance specialist with the Consumer Federation of America. “And if you’re reckless enough to do things you shouldn’t be doing, then your insurance is there to cover you.”
Dick Luedke, a spokesman for State Farm, said in an e-mail that the insurer typically pays for accidents, even if the driver is intoxicated. “Generally speaking, we fulfill our promise even when the person to whom we make the promise violates the law, and we fulfill our promise to the person who texts while driving, whether or not that person is violating the law.”
“That’s the point of insurance,” Mr. Luedke said, in a follow-up phone call. He also noted that while the spotlight currently is on texting and cellphone use, there are all sorts of other ways drivers can become distracted, whether by disciplining children in the back seat, eating lunch or even fiddling with the radio: “Where do you draw the line?”
There’s also the problem of innocent parties who are injured. Say you are texting and not paying attention, and you strike a pedestrian, who incurs big medical bills. Typically, your insurance would pay for the victim’s care, since you caused the accident. Would it be fair to tell the victim, “Sorry, that’s not covered? The driver was texting so we can’t cover you?” said Loretta Worters, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group, in an e-mail. “We have an obligation to pay that claim, to protect that innocent bystander, even if you were stupid.”
Of course, if drivers repeatedly get in accidents, whether due to drunken driving or texting or another reason, the insurer is likely to jack up their premiums, or cancel their coverage.
Ms. Worters noted that the industry is taking steps to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving.
What do you think? Is there an argument to be made for not covering accidents caused by texting or other bad driving behavior?

The Trouble With ‘Like’ By PHILIP B. CORBETT

JANUARY 10, 2012, 8:00 AM


The Trouble With ‘Like’ By PHILIP B. CORBETT

Notes from the newsroom on grammar, usage and style. (Some frequently asked questions are here.)

There are many ways to misuse “like,” and we do so, repeatedly. Here’s the entry in The Times’s

stylebook:

like. The word plays many grammatical roles. The one that raises a usage issue is its sense

as a preposition meaning similar to. In that guise it can introduce only a noun or a

pronoun: He deals cards like a riverboat gambler. If in doubt about the fitness of a

construction with like, mentally test a substitute preposition (with, for example): He deals

cards with a riverboat gambler. If the resulting sentence is coherent, like is properly used.

But when like is used to introduce a full clause — consisting of subject and verb — it stops

being a preposition and becomes a conjunction. Traditional usage, preferred by The Times,

does not accept that construction: He is competitive, like his father was. Make it as his

father was, or simply like his father. If the as construction (although correct) sounds stiff

or awkward, try the way instead: He is competitive, the way his father was.

In other cases, if like fails the preposition test, as if may be needed: She pedaled as if [not

like] her life depended on it.

When like is used correctly as a preposition, it faces another test. The items linked by like

must be parallel, and therefore comparable. Do not write Like Houston, August in New

York is humid. That sentence compares August to Houston, not what its author meant.

Make it Like Houston, New York is humid in August.

A few recent missteps:

•••

Tangles of people flipped through hangers like they were pages of a magazine, occasionally

glancing up at charts converting original prices to 80-percent reductions.

“Like” is incorrectly used as a conjunction, introducing a full clause. A simple fix here is to trim the

clause to just a prepositional phrase: “like pages of a magazine.”

•••

But Mr. Boehner reiterated that House Republicans want a full-year extension like they approved

earlier this month, though their measure did not have the president’s or the Senate’s support,

largely because of unrelated provisions that House Republicans attached and because it would cut

unemployment aid from current levels.

The Trouble With 'Like' - NYTimes.com Page 1 of 6

http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/the-trouble-with-like-2/?pagemode=print 1/30/2012

Again, “like” is incorrectly used as a conjunction. One fix: “like the one they approved.”

•••

In 1980, Mr. Gingrich staged an event on the steps of the Capitol for Republicans to publicly commit

to a “G.O.P. National Contract’’ that pledged tax and spending cuts, much like the Contract With

America later would in 1994.

Same problem. Here, we could just switch to “as.”

•••

Like most patterns derived from small sample sizes — there have been only five competitive

Republican caucuses since 1980 — it is possible that this one is just a coincidence.

Here’s the other problem mentioned in the stylebook entry, a form of dangling modifier. The person or

thing that is “like most patterns” should come right after the modifier. One simple fix: “Like most

patterns … this one may be just a coincidence.”

When Spell-Check Can’t Help

Just after I had emptied this file, four new examples of sound-alike mix-ups popped up:

•••

Charlotte Moss, the designer, pointed out that artificial mistletoe can be “unbelievably real.’’ But Ms.

Moss, who remembers shimmying up a tree in her native Virginia to get fresh mistletoe, said that

she still prefers the actual thing.

A reader notes that the word for pulling oneself up a tree or pole is “shinny” or “shin.” “Shimmy”

means to shake. (Also, note that our sequence-of-tense rules call for “preferred” after the past-tense

“said.”)

•••

The snakes, which favor the warmth and humidity of South Florida, typically hide out in the brush.

During mating season, which is occurring now, they often sun themselves on levies near canals.

A surprisingly common mix-up. A levy is a tax; we meant “levees.”

•••

Questioned by a prominent television anchor, she repudiated Mullen’s testimony, not only

disavowing any evidence of ISI complicity in the attack on America’s embassy in Kabul but also softpeddling

the spy agency’s coziness with terrorists.

Make it “soft-pedaling.” The image is not of a low-key sales pitch, but of a pianist using a pedal to

soften a tone.

•••

The Trouble With 'Like' - NYTimes.com Page 2 of 6

http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/the-trouble-with-like-2/?pagemode=print 1/30/2012

So here’s my forecast for next year: If Mr. Romney is in fact the Republican presidential nominee, he

will make wildly false claims about Mr. Obama and, occasionally, get some flack for doing so.

“Flack” is a slang term for publicist; the slang term meaning criticism is “flak.”

In a Word

This week’s grab bag of grammar, style and other missteps, compiled with help from colleagues and

readers.

•••

But at least a couple times each week, there’s a flare-up of one kind or another — one of the

consequences of creating stars out of so many ordinary people.

Make it “a couple of times.”

•••

On Dec. 17, they were married at the Clarke Cooke House, a restaurant in Newport, R.I., where the

bride and her father, a paper company executive, often ate dinner after sailing. On the menu was

lobster rolls and French fries.

Be careful with these inverted constructions. The compound subject is plural; make it “were.”

•••

This fall, PBS embarked on a marketing blitz to promote Ken Burns’s “Prohibition” documentary

miniseries, including a joint round-table discussion with Mr. Burns and the creators of HBO’s

drama “Boardwalk Empire,” which takes place during the Prohibition era. … An aggressive

promotional campaign helped “Downton Abbey” win six Emmy Awards, including best mini-series

or movie, away from competitors on HBO and Starz.

Which is it? The stylebook favors “mini-series,” with the hyphen.

•••

Ms. Badger was treated and released from Stamford Hospital on Sunday.

This is police-blotter jargon — she was not “treated from Stamford Hospital.” We could say “treated at

Stamford Hospital and released.”

•••

Thrift stores, once thought of as dusty places where the down-on-their-luck skulked for bargains, are

gradually adding perks that impart a more-exclusive feel to the shopping experience.

No need for a hyphen in this phrase.

•••

The wide gap between the figures for Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum say much about their

organizations in Iowa, which has more than 1,700 precincts.

The Trouble With 'Like' - NYTimes.com Page 3 of 6

http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/the-trouble-with-like-2/?pagemode=print 1/30/2012

Agreement problem: make it “the wide gap … says.”

•••

On 35 trading days in the year, the broader market closed with a gain or loss of 2 percent or more —

the most number of days of that magnitude since the financial crisis of 2008-9 and making

2011 among the most volatile on record for stocks.

Make it “the most days,” and rephrase the rest of this awkward sentence.

•••

Outside a synagogue on Hazon Ish Street in the Kirya ha-Haredit quarter, a sign requested that

females should cross to the opposite sidewalk and certainly not tarry outside the building.

“Should” is unnecessary after “requested.”

•••

Asked if the on-air tribute were an indication that this might be Mr. Clark’s last year on “Rockin’

Eve,” Mr. Shapiro said, “That’s a great question, and the only one that knows that answer is Dick

himself.”

For proper sequence of tenses, this should simply be the past tense “was”; no need for the subjunctive.

•••

The near fire-sale prices are great for consumers, who can now buy a television for a fraction of

what one cost just a few years ago.

False precision. The already overused “fire-sale prices” really doesn’t mean anything except that the

prices are very low. Saying prices are “near” fire-sale levels tells the reader nothing more, especially

since the article had already quoted actual prices.

•••

That was not the case, however, with the Rev. Bill Devlin, an evangelical pastor, who was upset by a

separate issue.

As Mr. Bloomberg took the stage to deliver his remarks, the Rev. Devlin rose to protest a decision by

the city to eject churches and religious groups that hold prayer service in schools.

Here’s what the stylebook says:

Rev. The Rev. Lee A. Bildots. For most Protestants the later reference is Mr., Ms., Mrs. or

Miss. For Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and those Episcopalians who prefer it, use

Father in later references: Father Bildots. Lutheran ministers, in later references, are

normally called Pastor: Pastor Bildots. (For an exception, see pastor.) Never use the Rev.

(or just Reverend) with a surname alone, as in Reverend Bildots is coming to dinner.

•••

The Trouble With 'Like' - NYTimes.com Page 4 of 6

http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/the-trouble-with-like-2/?pagemode=print 1/30/2012

Brazilians here slip into the Latin American lifestyle — late dinners and familiar fashions, food

familiar music.

We were showing our ragged edges here. This jumbled edit made it into print but was later fixed for the

Web.

•••

WASHINGTON — Even as they advocate for limited government, many of the Republican

presidential candidates hold expansive views about the scope of the executive powers they would

wield if elected — including the ability to authorize the targeted killing of United States citizens they

deem threats and to launch military attacks without Congressional permission.

“Advocate” is a transitive verb that should take a direct object. You advocate limited government; you

don’t advocate FOR limited government.

•••

In the case of the teenager’s arrest described by Mr. Gentile, Mr. Browne said the plainclothes officer

involved had a script he was working from that indicated he had just stolen the electronic device from

an Apple store and wanted to get rid of it for an inexpensive price.

The object is inexpensive; the price is low.

•••

Like many on hand, Mr. Cohen was aware, he said, that while classic brands are sometimes

revived (Corning executives bought back the rights to the Steuben name to keep it out of competitors’

hands), they usually do so as specters of themselves.

The “do so” construction should be parallel with what it refers back to. Here, the earlier construction is

passive and so not parallel. Perhaps the convoluted sentence and the parenthetical insert threw us off

track.

•••

Ticket sales for serious-minded Broadway shows were akin to a lump of coal last week during the

run-up to the Christmas holiday, according to an analysis of weekly show grosses released on

Tuesday.

Like the “Grinch” allusion I grumped over last week, this “lump of coal” analogy isn’t very fresh. We’re

probably safe for a while now, but let’s try to resist next Christmas, too.

•••

Honorable mention in this category goes to the cancellation of “Funny Girl,” one of the few namebrand

Broadway shows — thanks to you-know-who — that has not been seen in a major

revival.)

Recorded announcement: This construction requires a plural verb because the relative clause describes

“the few name-brand Broadway shows,” not “one.” If the parenthetical insert makes the plural

construction awkward, rephrase. Perhaps “one of the few … not to be seen,” or something like “the rare

name-brand Broadway show that has not been seen …”

The Trouble With 'Like' - NYTimes.com Page 5 of 6

http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/the-trouble-with-like-2/?pagemode=print 1/30/2012

Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

•••

After Deadline examines questions of grammar, usage and style encountered by writers and editors

of The Times. It is adapted from a weekly newsroom critique overseen by Philip B. Corbett, the

associate managing editor for standards, who is also in charge of The Times’s style manual.

The Trouble With 'Like' - NYTimes.com Page 6 of 6

http://

Monday, January 09, 2012

Where Are the Liberals? By DAVID BROOKS


January 9, 2012

Where Are the Liberals? By 


Why aren’t there more liberals in America?
It’s not because liberalism lacks cultural power. Many polls suggest that a majority of college professors and national journalists vote Democratic. The movie, TV, music and publishing industries are dominated by liberals.
It’s not because recent events have disproved the liberal worldview. On the contrary, we’re still recovering from a financial crisis caused, in large measure, by Wall Street excess. Corporate profits are zooming while worker salaries are flat.
It’s not because liberalism’s opponents are going from strength to strength. The Republican Party is unpopular and sometimes embarrassing.
Given the circumstances, this should be a golden age of liberalism. Yet the percentage of Americans who call themselves liberals is either flat or in decline. There are now two conservatives in this country for every liberal. Over the past 40 years, liberalism has been astonishingly incapable at expanding its market share.
The most important explanation is what you might call the Instrument Problem. Americans may agree with liberal diagnoses, but they don’t trust the instrument the Democrats use to solve problems. They don’t trust the federal government.
A few decades ago they did, but now they don’t. Roughly 10 percent of Americans trust government to do the right thing most of the time, according to an October New York Times, CBS News poll.
Why don’t Americans trust their government? It’s not because they dislike individual programs like Medicare. It’s more likely because they think the whole system is rigged. Or to put it in the economists’ language, they believe the government has been captured by rent-seekers.
This is the disease that corrodes government at all times and in all places. As George F. Will wrote in a column in Sunday’s Washington Post, as government grows, interest groups accumulate, seeking to capture its power and money.
Some of these rent-seeking groups are corporate types. Will notes that the federal government delivers sugar subsidies that benefit a few rich providers while imposing costs on millions of consumers.
Other rent-seeking groups are dispersed across the political spectrum. The tax code has been tweaked 4,428 times in the past 10 years, to the benefit of interests of left, right and center.
Others exercise their power transparently and democratically. As Will notes, in 2009, the net worth of households headed by senior citizens was 47 times the net worth of households led by people under 35. Yet seniors use their voting power to protect programs that redistribute even more money from the young to the old and affluent.
You would think that liberals would have a special incentive to root out rent-seeking. Yet this has not been a major priority. There is no Steve Jobs figure in American liberalism insisting that the designers keep government simple, elegant and user-friendly. Sailors scrub their ships. Farmers clear weeds. Democrats have not spent a lot of time scraping barnacles off the state.
Worse, in an attempt to match Republican rhetoric, Democratic politicians are perpetually soiling the name of government for the sake of short-term gain. How many times have you heard Democrats from Carter to Obama running against Washington, accusing it of being insular, shortsighted, corrupt and petty? If the surgeon himself thinks his tools are rancid, why shouldn’t you?
In the past few weeks, the Obama administration has begun his presidential campaign by picking a series of small fights with the Republican-led House over things like recess appointments. These vicious squabbles may help Obama in the short term by making him look better than Republicans in Congress. But they will only further discredit Washington over the long run.
Life is unfair. Republican venality unintentionally reinforces the conservative argument that government is corrupt. Democratic venality undermines the Democratic argument that Washington can be trusted to do good.
Liberalism has not expanded because it has not had a Martin Luther, a leader committed to stripping away the corruptions, complexities and indulgences that have grown up over the years.
If you’ll forgive some outside advice, President Obama might consider running for re-election as Luther. It’s not enough to pick a series of small squabbles and then win as the least ugly man in the room. He might run as someone who believes in government but sees how much it needs to be cleansed and purified.
Make the tax code simple. Make job training simple. Make Medicare simple. Every week choose a rent-seeker to hold up for ridicule and renunciation. Change the Congressional rules. Simplify the legal thickets that undermine responsibility.
If Democrats can’t restore Americans’ trust in government, it really doesn’t matter what problems they identify and what plans they propose. No one will believe in the instrument they rely on for solutions.


Blog Archive