Regarding the grammar section, I am much more interested in the content of your newsletter than obscure (to me, at least) grammar rules. In other words, I am interested in substance, not form. Keep up the good work of keeping me informed!
Good form can clarify substance. And clarity is always desirable.
I've been internalizing this for years: "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, BUT I'm not sure you realize that I may not have said what I mean." Ponder that. L&B&L
Ida, after six seven years now of the literary genius of Trumpian rhetoric and Tweets, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Robert’s writing can be tolerated, with questions for clarity being always welcome as we have seen.
I support substance over form, but once upon a time I heard a lawyer on the radio point out that typos distract the reader from the argument the writer is trying to make. So the fewer typos and grammatical errors, the more persuasive you are—while still accommodating shifts of usage in a living language.
I support substance over form, too, Ellie. There is always, however, context. What stops me dead every time is a split infinitive, even though I now know the old proscription had to do with the Latin infinitive form. I'm not going to look it up but I think the Latin couldn't be split because it was a single word, unlike the English that is two words. Made sense when I was much younger... And now I know that anything that's alive - like you and me and language - changes. Typos are annoying. Yup. L&B&L
I’ve spent the past couple of years reading and learning about racism. I’ve also spent a lifetime enjoying calling out bad grammar. One day it hit me that “correct “ grammar has been imposed upon us by elite white privileged men. I’ll never correct anyone again. ( even if the “incorrect” usage of “less” and “fewer” stabs my heart a bit) , I tell myself that as a 75 yo white woman, it’s time for me to let people express themselves in a way that feels good to them. I have a lot to learn.
Agree 100%. Fun fact: Chaucer used "axed" much more frequently than he used "asked" to indicate when someone had posed a question. See Columbia Chaucer Concordance, http://www.columbia.edu/~hfl2110/cconcord.html
If I had a nickel for every time a reader justified their view of the "correct" word based on the argument "because that's the way it was when I was taught English," I could buy the OED in hardcopy. If prior usage dictates "correctness", then everyone should be saying "axed" rather than "asked." And there is a very good argument that the English language is inevitably heading to that pronunciation (because it is simpler). Here is John McWhorter's explanation in the LATimes:
First, it’s important to understand that, as English goes, “ax” is a perfectly normal thing to have happened to a word like “ask.” Take the word “fish.” It started as “fisk,” with the same -sk ending that “ask” has. Over time, in some places people started saying “fisk” as “fiks,” while in others they started saying “fisk” as “fish.” After a while, “fish” won out over “fiks,” and here we are today. The same thing happened with “mash.” It started as “mask.” Later some people were saying “maks” and others were saying “mash.” “Mash” won.
With “ask,” some people started saying “aks,” and some started saying “ash.” But this time, it wasn’t “ash” that won out. Instead, for a while “aks” was doing pretty well. Even Chaucer used it in “The Canterbury Tales,” in lines such as this one: “Yow loveres axe I now this questioun."
As an aside, the late Ursula K. Le Guin in an essay somewhere noted that "Everyone please take their seats" was perfectly good usage a couple hundred years ago and there's no reason we can't bring it back, especially given how useful a neutral pronoun is for writing non-gendered material. There must be lots more such, as per McWhorter.
Thanks for the Fun Fact! A friend and I were just discussing over the weekend the use of "ax" as opposed to "ask." I sent your comment to him just now!
I don't know -- English is a beautiful language, full of subtle meanings such as less and fewer, and I for one don't wish to give that up. It is a richness of our language that we can lose if we stop paying attention. How do you feel about giving up "their" vs "there"? as some of my college students do?
We must be judgemental, we are all the time (how do you feel about murderers? or people who cheat? or rude people?). I guess you are deciding which things to be judgemental about, and how to express disapproval. There I agree wholeheartedly! As it happens, I relish beautiful language. I saw someone wearing a pin that said "I am silently correcting your grammar"! That's for me!
I'm trying to change things I have control over and letting the other stuff go. Being critical of strangers does me no good. And language is getting lower on my priority list. But don't ask me about misplaced apostrophies!!!
Aug 23, 2022·edited Aug 23, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Today I learned from an NPR radio station that effective altruism is a thing. Focus for Democracy is a great example of an organization vetting which are the progressive political organizations that do data analysis to most effectively target funds to make maximum difference and that have a need for additional funds. They endorsed The States Project for this reason, and now endorse Working America.
From having attended the most recent Focus for Democracy Zoom a week ago, I was impressed. They gathered 700 participants to learn about Working America from Matt Morrison. The demographic trended older white folks, and the range of pledges trended upper middle class to wealthy.
Working America is affiliated with the AFL-CIO and does the scientific research to determine which method is most effective to reach voters in swing states on behalf of the working class--for example, social media in Michigan but canvasser door knockers in North Carolina. It was heartening to see that people who have both wealth to share and caring consciousness stepped up to support the critical work of Matt Morrison and Working America. American democracy needs more such bridges! But better than a personal feel-good experience, I encourage people to learn about Working America from the source person on the Zoom and then spread the word!
Morning, Ellie! Either I'm following you or you, me? I read this article from Vox's Future Perfect a week or two ago. It's sorta the left's answer to the right's Federalist Society?
Thanks for the link to the Vox piece on effective altruism. It is one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time. I will follow this movement more closely. It is uplifting to know that there are people willing to help on short term and long term effective solutions in a way that circumvents politics and maximizes good.
As a complete aside (and most everyone should probably stop reading here), regarding the article's discussion of AI in our future: AI's future is a very serious issue that deserves more thought from politicians and leaders than we are currently devoting to it. But . . . we should recognize that AI is best in specific intelligence situations and not-so-good in general intelligence situations. Will we ever have self-driving cars? Only if we eliminate all human drivers and give control of all automobiles to computers. At that point, we will have simply avoided the limitations of general AI by creating a specific AI application. And then there is the question of whether "P=NP?" Most people assume the answer is "probably not," which suggests that although AI will continue to become very powerful in specific situations, there are significant limitations on its widespread applicability to real-life complex environments that humans navigate easily. If you are still reading and want to set me straight, please email me at rhubbell@outlook.com. Would love to discuss.
Wow, Lynell, thanks for this article. I’m sharing it widely.
Progressives still have a way to go to be the answer to the Federalist Society, starting with keeping Republicans from taking over Congress and state legislatures. The Federalist Society has already infiltrated SCOTUS, the one branch of government in our system of checks and balances that is virtually untouchable once a justice has been confirmed, and now they are even more strongly funded to seed cases to rise to SCOTUS for favorable rulings. I hope the well-intended Effective Altruism folks become equally focused and don’t shy away from this urgent near-term political need, as is being addressed by Focus for Democracy, The States Project, and Working America.
Thanks for the nod, Ellie. At the risk of "flooding" your inbox, yesterday (Tuesday) I received another email written by Kelsey Piper of Vox re Effective Altruism. For some reason, I could only copy-and-paste the message; the graphs did not copy onto this post, nor did the links provided in the original email. However, it's more good news about this group's efforts:
"Effective altruism (EA) has been unusually active in the news this month with the release of the book What We Owe the Future by the Oxford philosopher and founding EA figure Will MacAskill. In it, MacAskill argues for what he calls “longtermism” – donations, policy, and activism focused on preserving the best possible long-term future of humanity.
"One frequent — and reasonable — critique of longtermism is that it could steer the effective altruist movement away from its biggest achievements to date: saving lots of peoples’ lives in the present with direct and immediate measures.
"Effective altruism encourages donating a far larger share of rich Westerners’ household income than most people do on average. My wife and I, for example, target giving 30% of our pre-tax income.
"Effective altruist money has funded vaccinations, lifesaving health care, vitamins targeting critical nutrient deficiencies, cash distributions in poor areas, and research into pandemic prevention, global development, humane farming, and other critical, immediate stuff dedicated to helping those in need right here, right now.
"Effective altruism is growing on all fronts
"I agree with longtermism’s central claim that people not yet born should be a key priority in our policy and decision-making. But if the shift to longtermism meant that effective altruists would stop helping the people of the present, and would instead put all their money and energy into projects meant to help the distant future, it would be doing an obvious and immediate harm. That would make it hard to be sure EA was a good thing overall, even to someone like me who shares its key assumptions.
"However, recent data from GiveWell, which directs effective altruist cash to top-priority global health causes, suggests that tradeoff is a myth. That’s because for all the attention on longtermism recently, the last year has also been the best year ever for effective altruist money funding present-day global health and development.
"GiveWell
"For people who worry about whether effective altruism is a competitive tussle between a few cause areas, with some gaining at the expense of others, I think this chart ought to be enormously reassuring.
"The picture it paints instead is that as effective altruism has gotten big – and as effective altruist-aligned institutions have broadly oriented themselves more towards long-term and existential-risk priorities – the movement has also gotten stronger and healthier in terms of the money focused on global health and development as well.
"Of course, it’s impossible to rule out that EA would be growing even faster if not for longtermist “weird stuff.” But I think that’s a hard-to-demonstrate claim, and one I don’t totally buy.
"MacAskill’s book has put weird stuff front and center, but the reception has been remarkably positive, introducing tons of people to effective altruism, including to the more direct work on today’s concrete problems.
"A symbiotic relationship
"My main takeaway from the GiveWell chart is that it’s a mistake to believe that global health and development charities have to fight with AI and biosecurity charities for a limited budget of resources.
"The vast majority of Americans don’t donate much to charity at all, nor do they choose their careers on the basis of making progress on critical global issues. But as effective altruism has become more prominent, it has gotten more people on board, each of whom decides for themselves which EA priorities persuade them — and then works on those topics.
"You could imagine the EA movement growing to the point where further growth is mostly about persuading people of intra-movement priority changes, but that day is very far in the future.
"This is not to say that I think effective altruism should just be about whatever EAs want to do or fund. Prioritization of causes is at the heart of the movement — it’s the “effective” in effective altruism.
"But the recent funding data does incline me toward worrying less that new focuses for effective altruism will come at the direct expense of existing ones, or that we must sacrifice the welfare of the present for the possibilities of the future.
"In a growing, energized, and increasingly powerful movement, there is plenty of passion — and money — to go around."
My worry is about short term, near future autocracy in which case these EA folks' assets will be appropriated, so it will pay to attend to nipping the growing autocracy in the bud--now.
Working America deals in facts and truths, as opposed to the "seat of the pants" streams of turgidity coming from the Reactionary Right. It attracts those of integrity, like my two brothers, both life-long Republicans, who no longer want anything to do with DJT and his ilk.
Mr. Hubbell, we are playing a fool's game if we don't remind ourselves that our "Third Branch" is not only under attack, but the walls are breached! The conservative project's minions -- exemplified by William Barr at the DOJ and the "Supremes" of Bush v Gore and their progeny -- are hard at work! They will not be a bulwark of our democracy. The onslaught is upon us and opinion articles to Fox and Friends are not the call to arms that we need or the organization that is necessary. To wit, HCR: "Today’s big news is an eye-popping $1.6 billion donation to a right-wing nonprofit organized in May 2020. This is the largest known single donation made to a political influence organization."
You are preaching to the choir. The obvious solution, which is available to Democrats TODAY, is to enlarge the Supreme Court. But whenever I make that solution, the majority of readers respond that it will (a) delegitimize the Court and (b) Republicans will do the same thing. The answers to those objections are "Of course," and "Of course." But those are not reasons for Democrats to fail to act when they can (now). We can worry about Republicans doing the same thing when--and if--they ever control the presidency and the Senate again.
I’d like to see the Democrats do that but it seems to me it will require a real shift by the party (Dems) who seem to have been naive and failed to see that the Rs weren’t playing by the same rules. The only exception to that is Nancy Pelosi who knows their game and fights hard.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has spoken several times on the Senate floor, continuing his series about a right-wing scheme to capture the Supreme Court with dark money. I have watched 13 of his videos where he explains the history of the capture. It is disheartening that more people (lawmakers) have not gotten behind the senator to stay this dark money influence the country is under.
Well said, but Fox and Friends are surely useful to those who have $1.6 billion to spend filling the public with misinformation. Sean has his own plane. Tucker bellies up the Orban and promotes the white Christian narrative that serves the right - both get rich. The Rs get the Supreme Court. Everybody on that side of the ledger is happy, especially the justices who can settle their grievances over bruising confirmation hearings and more.
I am not an academic but just a simple informed reader and frankly Robert I do t care if your grammar on syntax is correct because your thoughts and insights are right on and greatly appreciated by one and all.
I think "grammar" and "syntax" are just like recipes for dinner or dessert. They are someone's opinion. It's nice to have writing standards like it's nice to have speed limits. But when was the last time we paid strict attention to "55 mph"? Or how much sugar is allowed in a red sauce?
Aug 23, 2022·edited Aug 23, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Bravo as always and thank you, Robert! As for the grammar scolds: I used to teach writing and literature at UC Berkeley, then became a journalist and editor for HBR, and now I ghostwrite nonfiction books. As one who knows her stuff, I say: ignore the grammar scolds. Your writing is JUST FINE and you have my full and complete endorsement. So there.
Aug 23, 2022·edited Aug 23, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Best. Line. Ever. from Eric Swalwell referring to the crazy Republican candidates: “Give them power, they fight for Trump. Give us Congress, we fight for you.” (from interview reported in The Daily Beast). I think we've got ourselves a winner...print the t-shirts and bumper stickers!
Every single time I see Trump make another fake legal move I see a big hairy hand come down and stamp "GRIFT". What a great con Donald! Your best yet! And the media obliges.
Meanwhile. President Biden is working for the American people.
Aug 23, 2022·edited Aug 23, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
"Movant" (the legal term used by his attorney to describe T***p in his recent motion for judicial oversight) -- an interesting word I didn't know before. In this case, is it an acronym for "Money Over Values And No Taxes"?
I agree with you with regard to Liz Cheney. I respect her very much but certainly not her politics, she is a hardcore conservative who consistently votes with the Republican establishment. I struggle to articulate why it bugs me so much that she changed her thinking on Same Sex Marriage. Only after she got her nosed rubbed in it by her sister did she decide she was wrong. Should it take a crisis in one’s family to make a cognitive decision between right and wrong? We have a republican state rep in our town who is a gay person she votes against every single thing that would help the average Jo but you can bet that she will vote for something that helps her family business and ya, she voted to support gay marriage. It bugs me. A judge doesn’t sit up there and make decisions based on an emotional disagreement with her siblings, rather, decisions are based on analysis and law. Anyway- you can always say that politicians change their minds and gay or straight they may support a bill based on personal preference … I dunno. I’m rambling…
I agree with your overall assessment of Liz Cheney, but there is something wonderful about seeing people change their minds when they realize these issues affect their personal families. They walk around oblivious to the feelings of others and sometimes it takes having an issue come home to make one think about it in a more reasonable way. In turn, it makes others reconsider their positions (imo), especially when the person doing the reversing is someone prominent.
I can't believe you actually get emails about "grammar"!!! I don't know how much time it takes you and Jill to put this treasure out nearly every day, but I love and need this work and this community and I am so grateful. I was thrilled that you answered my content question and clarified what I needed to learn. May I suggest that you sub title your newsletter "Substance over Style" and freely delete any email that even hints at style correction. Thank you and blessings!!!
Got an email from DJT yesterday asking me if I thought he was being treated unfairly. I ALMOST answered, but decided discretion was the better part of valor and jettisoned the email. This guy has everybody’s email address! How does this happen? The bulwark of democracy has turned into a dory, and we are all rowing madly.
Just so you know…you can answer truthfully (not treated unfairly) but it won’t even be “recorded” as any response unless you contribute to his campaign. Bottom line, only want your money—not your opinion.
Regarding the grammar section, I am much more interested in the content of your newsletter than obscure (to me, at least) grammar rules. In other words, I am interested in substance, not form. Keep up the good work of keeping me informed!
Good form can clarify substance. And clarity is always desirable.
I've been internalizing this for years: "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, BUT I'm not sure you realize that I may not have said what I mean." Ponder that. L&B&L
Ida, after six seven years now of the literary genius of Trumpian rhetoric and Tweets, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Robert’s writing can be tolerated, with questions for clarity being always welcome as we have seen.
Yikes, I followed that Ida!
Good on you Lynell - it's convoluted! L&B&L
I support substance over form, but once upon a time I heard a lawyer on the radio point out that typos distract the reader from the argument the writer is trying to make. So the fewer typos and grammatical errors, the more persuasive you are—while still accommodating shifts of usage in a living language.
I support substance over form, too, Ellie. There is always, however, context. What stops me dead every time is a split infinitive, even though I now know the old proscription had to do with the Latin infinitive form. I'm not going to look it up but I think the Latin couldn't be split because it was a single word, unlike the English that is two words. Made sense when I was much younger... And now I know that anything that's alive - like you and me and language - changes. Typos are annoying. Yup. L&B&L
Wow! Ida, you would be a tough teacher. Students would look back years later and say thank you. Were you a teacher? Are you still? 🤓
No. But I had one teaching grammar in 7th grade: Jennie Donovan, may her memory be for a blessing. Later on, I discovered she was a hot schlitz!
I’ve spent the past couple of years reading and learning about racism. I’ve also spent a lifetime enjoying calling out bad grammar. One day it hit me that “correct “ grammar has been imposed upon us by elite white privileged men. I’ll never correct anyone again. ( even if the “incorrect” usage of “less” and “fewer” stabs my heart a bit) , I tell myself that as a 75 yo white woman, it’s time for me to let people express themselves in a way that feels good to them. I have a lot to learn.
Agree 100%. Fun fact: Chaucer used "axed" much more frequently than he used "asked" to indicate when someone had posed a question. See Columbia Chaucer Concordance, http://www.columbia.edu/~hfl2110/cconcord.html
If I had a nickel for every time a reader justified their view of the "correct" word based on the argument "because that's the way it was when I was taught English," I could buy the OED in hardcopy. If prior usage dictates "correctness", then everyone should be saying "axed" rather than "asked." And there is a very good argument that the English language is inevitably heading to that pronunciation (because it is simpler). Here is John McWhorter's explanation in the LATimes:
First, it’s important to understand that, as English goes, “ax” is a perfectly normal thing to have happened to a word like “ask.” Take the word “fish.” It started as “fisk,” with the same -sk ending that “ask” has. Over time, in some places people started saying “fisk” as “fiks,” while in others they started saying “fisk” as “fish.” After a while, “fish” won out over “fiks,” and here we are today. The same thing happened with “mash.” It started as “mask.” Later some people were saying “maks” and others were saying “mash.” “Mash” won.
With “ask,” some people started saying “aks,” and some started saying “ash.” But this time, it wasn’t “ash” that won out. Instead, for a while “aks” was doing pretty well. Even Chaucer used it in “The Canterbury Tales,” in lines such as this one: “Yow loveres axe I now this questioun."
As an aside, the late Ursula K. Le Guin in an essay somewhere noted that "Everyone please take their seats" was perfectly good usage a couple hundred years ago and there's no reason we can't bring it back, especially given how useful a neutral pronoun is for writing non-gendered material. There must be lots more such, as per McWhorter.
Thanks for the Fun Fact! A friend and I were just discussing over the weekend the use of "ax" as opposed to "ask." I sent your comment to him just now!
I'm 75 and I'm trying, too. Difficult...
Yeah, that less and fewer makes me cringe
I don't know -- English is a beautiful language, full of subtle meanings such as less and fewer, and I for one don't wish to give that up. It is a richness of our language that we can lose if we stop paying attention. How do you feel about giving up "their" vs "there"? as some of my college students do?
I agree. I'm just trying to be less judgemental. It all makes me cringe!
We must be judgemental, we are all the time (how do you feel about murderers? or people who cheat? or rude people?). I guess you are deciding which things to be judgemental about, and how to express disapproval. There I agree wholeheartedly! As it happens, I relish beautiful language. I saw someone wearing a pin that said "I am silently correcting your grammar"! That's for me!
I love it!
I'm trying to change things I have control over and letting the other stuff go. Being critical of strangers does me no good. And language is getting lower on my priority list. But don't ask me about misplaced apostrophies!!!
I bet you like the book Eats Shoots and Leaves.
LOL! Yes, I do!
Today I learned from an NPR radio station that effective altruism is a thing. Focus for Democracy is a great example of an organization vetting which are the progressive political organizations that do data analysis to most effectively target funds to make maximum difference and that have a need for additional funds. They endorsed The States Project for this reason, and now endorse Working America.
From having attended the most recent Focus for Democracy Zoom a week ago, I was impressed. They gathered 700 participants to learn about Working America from Matt Morrison. The demographic trended older white folks, and the range of pledges trended upper middle class to wealthy.
Working America is affiliated with the AFL-CIO and does the scientific research to determine which method is most effective to reach voters in swing states on behalf of the working class--for example, social media in Michigan but canvasser door knockers in North Carolina. It was heartening to see that people who have both wealth to share and caring consciousness stepped up to support the critical work of Matt Morrison and Working America. American democracy needs more such bridges! But better than a personal feel-good experience, I encourage people to learn about Working America from the source person on the Zoom and then spread the word!
Morning, Ellie! Either I'm following you or you, me? I read this article from Vox's Future Perfect a week or two ago. It's sorta the left's answer to the right's Federalist Society?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/8/8/23150496/effective-altruism-sam-bankman-fried-dustin-moskovitz-billionaire-philanthropy-crytocurrency
Thanks for the link to the Vox piece on effective altruism. It is one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time. I will follow this movement more closely. It is uplifting to know that there are people willing to help on short term and long term effective solutions in a way that circumvents politics and maximizes good.
As a complete aside (and most everyone should probably stop reading here), regarding the article's discussion of AI in our future: AI's future is a very serious issue that deserves more thought from politicians and leaders than we are currently devoting to it. But . . . we should recognize that AI is best in specific intelligence situations and not-so-good in general intelligence situations. Will we ever have self-driving cars? Only if we eliminate all human drivers and give control of all automobiles to computers. At that point, we will have simply avoided the limitations of general AI by creating a specific AI application. And then there is the question of whether "P=NP?" Most people assume the answer is "probably not," which suggests that although AI will continue to become very powerful in specific situations, there are significant limitations on its widespread applicability to real-life complex environments that humans navigate easily. If you are still reading and want to set me straight, please email me at rhubbell@outlook.com. Would love to discuss.
Long overdue
Wow, Lynell, thanks for this article. I’m sharing it widely.
Progressives still have a way to go to be the answer to the Federalist Society, starting with keeping Republicans from taking over Congress and state legislatures. The Federalist Society has already infiltrated SCOTUS, the one branch of government in our system of checks and balances that is virtually untouchable once a justice has been confirmed, and now they are even more strongly funded to seed cases to rise to SCOTUS for favorable rulings. I hope the well-intended Effective Altruism folks become equally focused and don’t shy away from this urgent near-term political need, as is being addressed by Focus for Democracy, The States Project, and Working America.
Thanks for the nod, Ellie. At the risk of "flooding" your inbox, yesterday (Tuesday) I received another email written by Kelsey Piper of Vox re Effective Altruism. For some reason, I could only copy-and-paste the message; the graphs did not copy onto this post, nor did the links provided in the original email. However, it's more good news about this group's efforts:
"Effective altruism (EA) has been unusually active in the news this month with the release of the book What We Owe the Future by the Oxford philosopher and founding EA figure Will MacAskill. In it, MacAskill argues for what he calls “longtermism” – donations, policy, and activism focused on preserving the best possible long-term future of humanity.
"One frequent — and reasonable — critique of longtermism is that it could steer the effective altruist movement away from its biggest achievements to date: saving lots of peoples’ lives in the present with direct and immediate measures.
"Effective altruism encourages donating a far larger share of rich Westerners’ household income than most people do on average. My wife and I, for example, target giving 30% of our pre-tax income.
"Effective altruist money has funded vaccinations, lifesaving health care, vitamins targeting critical nutrient deficiencies, cash distributions in poor areas, and research into pandemic prevention, global development, humane farming, and other critical, immediate stuff dedicated to helping those in need right here, right now.
"Effective altruism is growing on all fronts
"I agree with longtermism’s central claim that people not yet born should be a key priority in our policy and decision-making. But if the shift to longtermism meant that effective altruists would stop helping the people of the present, and would instead put all their money and energy into projects meant to help the distant future, it would be doing an obvious and immediate harm. That would make it hard to be sure EA was a good thing overall, even to someone like me who shares its key assumptions.
"However, recent data from GiveWell, which directs effective altruist cash to top-priority global health causes, suggests that tradeoff is a myth. That’s because for all the attention on longtermism recently, the last year has also been the best year ever for effective altruist money funding present-day global health and development.
"GiveWell
"For people who worry about whether effective altruism is a competitive tussle between a few cause areas, with some gaining at the expense of others, I think this chart ought to be enormously reassuring.
"The picture it paints instead is that as effective altruism has gotten big – and as effective altruist-aligned institutions have broadly oriented themselves more towards long-term and existential-risk priorities – the movement has also gotten stronger and healthier in terms of the money focused on global health and development as well.
"Of course, it’s impossible to rule out that EA would be growing even faster if not for longtermist “weird stuff.” But I think that’s a hard-to-demonstrate claim, and one I don’t totally buy.
"MacAskill’s book has put weird stuff front and center, but the reception has been remarkably positive, introducing tons of people to effective altruism, including to the more direct work on today’s concrete problems.
"A symbiotic relationship
"My main takeaway from the GiveWell chart is that it’s a mistake to believe that global health and development charities have to fight with AI and biosecurity charities for a limited budget of resources.
"The vast majority of Americans don’t donate much to charity at all, nor do they choose their careers on the basis of making progress on critical global issues. But as effective altruism has become more prominent, it has gotten more people on board, each of whom decides for themselves which EA priorities persuade them — and then works on those topics.
"You could imagine the EA movement growing to the point where further growth is mostly about persuading people of intra-movement priority changes, but that day is very far in the future.
"This is not to say that I think effective altruism should just be about whatever EAs want to do or fund. Prioritization of causes is at the heart of the movement — it’s the “effective” in effective altruism.
"But the recent funding data does incline me toward worrying less that new focuses for effective altruism will come at the direct expense of existing ones, or that we must sacrifice the welfare of the present for the possibilities of the future.
"In a growing, energized, and increasingly powerful movement, there is plenty of passion — and money — to go around."
—Kelsey Piper
Thank you, Lynell! I found Kelsey Piper of Vox on Twitter with mention of that book:
https://twitter.com/albrgr/status/1559570635390562305?s=20&t=UjmlbD04fZsQKrys6TKORw
My worry is about short term, near future autocracy in which case these EA folks' assets will be appropriated, so it will pay to attend to nipping the growing autocracy in the bud--now.
Oh, my...yes!
Working America deals in facts and truths, as opposed to the "seat of the pants" streams of turgidity coming from the Reactionary Right. It attracts those of integrity, like my two brothers, both life-long Republicans, who no longer want anything to do with DJT and his ilk.
Love the grammar section! Ha! You’re saying we have to wait another year before we read more like this? Boo-hoo 🤣🤣🤣
I thought I knew about "lede" and "lead." Having read the link, I am now thoroughly confused. Besides, my "L" key sticks!
"lede" is journalism-ese, as Robert notes.
TY, Bronwyn!
Mr. Hubbell, we are playing a fool's game if we don't remind ourselves that our "Third Branch" is not only under attack, but the walls are breached! The conservative project's minions -- exemplified by William Barr at the DOJ and the "Supremes" of Bush v Gore and their progeny -- are hard at work! They will not be a bulwark of our democracy. The onslaught is upon us and opinion articles to Fox and Friends are not the call to arms that we need or the organization that is necessary. To wit, HCR: "Today’s big news is an eye-popping $1.6 billion donation to a right-wing nonprofit organized in May 2020. This is the largest known single donation made to a political influence organization."
You are preaching to the choir. The obvious solution, which is available to Democrats TODAY, is to enlarge the Supreme Court. But whenever I make that solution, the majority of readers respond that it will (a) delegitimize the Court and (b) Republicans will do the same thing. The answers to those objections are "Of course," and "Of course." But those are not reasons for Democrats to fail to act when they can (now). We can worry about Republicans doing the same thing when--and if--they ever control the presidency and the Senate again.
Thank you Choirmaster! We appreciate you and all that you do!
I’d like to see the Democrats do that but it seems to me it will require a real shift by the party (Dems) who seem to have been naive and failed to see that the Rs weren’t playing by the same rules. The only exception to that is Nancy Pelosi who knows their game and fights hard.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has spoken several times on the Senate floor, continuing his series about a right-wing scheme to capture the Supreme Court with dark money. I have watched 13 of his videos where he explains the history of the capture. It is disheartening that more people (lawmakers) have not gotten behind the senator to stay this dark money influence the country is under.
see my comment above. We can change everything next month if we expand the Court.
But Robert, isn’t this expansion idea a pipe dream? Is there really any broad or deep support for doing so?
Absolutely, Robert!
It's not drip, drip, drip. They have unleashed a flood that will wreck our Nation.
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked. And I thought Rupert was the most egregious billionaire on the planet. Where are you, Soros?
LOL, Jeri! I think he's mentioned in the Vox article I just linked. I read it over a week ago. My memory doesn't hold that long!
Well said, but Fox and Friends are surely useful to those who have $1.6 billion to spend filling the public with misinformation. Sean has his own plane. Tucker bellies up the Orban and promotes the white Christian narrative that serves the right - both get rich. The Rs get the Supreme Court. Everybody on that side of the ledger is happy, especially the justices who can settle their grievances over bruising confirmation hearings and more.
I am not an academic but just a simple informed reader and frankly Robert I do t care if your grammar on syntax is correct because your thoughts and insights are right on and greatly appreciated by one and all.
Thank you stephen. Agreed!
I think "grammar" and "syntax" are just like recipes for dinner or dessert. They are someone's opinion. It's nice to have writing standards like it's nice to have speed limits. But when was the last time we paid strict attention to "55 mph"? Or how much sugar is allowed in a red sauce?
“Fox entertainers”—love that! Folks who think Hubbell can’t write correctly are not paying attention. Period.
Yes, that was brilliant.
Bravo as always and thank you, Robert! As for the grammar scolds: I used to teach writing and literature at UC Berkeley, then became a journalist and editor for HBR, and now I ghostwrite nonfiction books. As one who knows her stuff, I say: ignore the grammar scolds. Your writing is JUST FINE and you have my full and complete endorsement. So there.
Best. Line. Ever. from Eric Swalwell referring to the crazy Republican candidates: “Give them power, they fight for Trump. Give us Congress, we fight for you.” (from interview reported in The Daily Beast). I think we've got ourselves a winner...print the t-shirts and bumper stickers!
I cannot imagine anyone wrestling with you concerning syntax. Your letters are essential reading. Thank you!
Every single time I see Trump make another fake legal move I see a big hairy hand come down and stamp "GRIFT". What a great con Donald! Your best yet! And the media obliges.
Meanwhile. President Biden is working for the American people.
"Movant" (the legal term used by his attorney to describe T***p in his recent motion for judicial oversight) -- an interesting word I didn't know before. In this case, is it an acronym for "Money Over Values And No Taxes"?
Biggest surprise of the day is that people write to you objecting to “entitled.”
But I guess they’re entitled to their opinion.
I agree with you with regard to Liz Cheney. I respect her very much but certainly not her politics, she is a hardcore conservative who consistently votes with the Republican establishment. I struggle to articulate why it bugs me so much that she changed her thinking on Same Sex Marriage. Only after she got her nosed rubbed in it by her sister did she decide she was wrong. Should it take a crisis in one’s family to make a cognitive decision between right and wrong? We have a republican state rep in our town who is a gay person she votes against every single thing that would help the average Jo but you can bet that she will vote for something that helps her family business and ya, she voted to support gay marriage. It bugs me. A judge doesn’t sit up there and make decisions based on an emotional disagreement with her siblings, rather, decisions are based on analysis and law. Anyway- you can always say that politicians change their minds and gay or straight they may support a bill based on personal preference … I dunno. I’m rambling…
I agree with your overall assessment of Liz Cheney, but there is something wonderful about seeing people change their minds when they realize these issues affect their personal families. They walk around oblivious to the feelings of others and sometimes it takes having an issue come home to make one think about it in a more reasonable way. In turn, it makes others reconsider their positions (imo), especially when the person doing the reversing is someone prominent.
I can't believe you actually get emails about "grammar"!!! I don't know how much time it takes you and Jill to put this treasure out nearly every day, but I love and need this work and this community and I am so grateful. I was thrilled that you answered my content question and clarified what I needed to learn. May I suggest that you sub title your newsletter "Substance over Style" and freely delete any email that even hints at style correction. Thank you and blessings!!!
love it!
That makes me happy!!!
Amen Chaplain!!!
Got an email from DJT yesterday asking me if I thought he was being treated unfairly. I ALMOST answered, but decided discretion was the better part of valor and jettisoned the email. This guy has everybody’s email address! How does this happen? The bulwark of democracy has turned into a dory, and we are all rowing madly.
Just so you know…you can answer truthfully (not treated unfairly) but it won’t even be “recorded” as any response unless you contribute to his campaign. Bottom line, only want your money—not your opinion.