Assorted Afflatuses

When I think of The New York Times, I think quality. Very rarely do I read anything that gives me any reason to complain.

Today, however, I found a piece so rife with problems, I wondered whether it skipped past the copy editor's desk and leapt straight onto the page. I speak of the article titled, "No Joke, Blub Change Is Challenge for U.S.," by one Claudia H. Deutsch, which graced the front page of today's Business section in the print edition of The Times.

As soon as the article begins, the problems emerge. The story starts, "The new energy bill signed this week makes it official. When 2012 hits, stores can no longer sell the cheap but inefficient incandescent light bulbs that are fixtures in most homes." It is as if the writer does not understand the difference between the future and present tenses. The year 2012 is in the future, so, logically, anything that will happen in that year — just over four years from now — should be expressed in the future tense. Thus, it should be, "When 2012 hits, stores will no longer be permitted to sell the..." instead.

The author continues with: "Even so, light bulb manufacturers say that worries about greenhouse gases and the high cost of energy had them moving away from conventional incandescents way before Congress weighed in."

When I read that sentence, I thought I had just suffered an aneurism. Did someone actually use "way before" in The New York Times? Fundamentally, I have no qualms with using "way" as a modifier. I use it regularly. But using such colloquial language in the Business section of an internationally distributed newspaper strikes me as, at the very least, strange. Why not say "long before" or "far before?" Neither one of those is overly ostentatious or formal, but both sound much less colloquial, come across as far more polished and convey much more authority.

The next sentence begins very awkwardly: "For quite some time, they note, they have been trying to soften the light emitted by compact fluorescent lights." The author could easily eliminate several words by simply saying, "They have long been trying to soften the light emitted by compact fluorescent lights," or something to that effect. It continues, "bring down the cost of light-emitting diodes — and yes, find ways to increase the efficiency of incandescents."

Proof that no person alive on this planet truly understands how hyphens work. She should have written, "bring down the cost of light-emitting diodes — and yes — find ways to increase the efficiency of incandescents."

Another punctuational error emerges in the next two paragraphs:

Frankly, I cannot believe The Times printed a story that contains a sentence ending in something other than a period, question mark or exclamation point. I suppose the writer could have kept both lines in one paragraph and in one sentence, which would eliminate the problem. But, either way, something went wrong.

The rest of the article moves along with some fluidity and grace. In fact, the author redeems herself somewhat by correctly using hyphens on two occasions. Though, I do have some minor quibbles about the writer's deleterious use of the passive voice, rather than the active voice in one or two places.

Hopefully someone in the quality-control department in New York reads this. The writer is, by no stretch of the imagination, terrible. I have read many a terrible story, and I know only too well what terrible is. But The New York Times is not just another newspaper. It is, as some would say, the newspaper of record. And, as such, I expect the articles to have, at the very least, correct punctuation.

On Friday evening, as I opened my web browser to Amazon.com to check the status of a shipment, I noticed a new banner on the homepage. Amazon.com, it seems, paid nearly $4 million to obtain the only publicly-available copy of Joanne Rowling's Tales of the Beetle Bard at a Sotheby's auction on 13 December.

I, for one, never understood why Ms. Rowling limited the distribution of the Tales to the handful of copies she bequeathed to people deeply connected with the Potter series, in addition to the one copy sold at auction for the benefit of a children's charity. Had her goal been to raise money for children in need, she could have easily arranged something with her publisher. A one-time $4 million donation from Amazon.com will doubtlessly do a great deal of good, but Ms. Rowling could do far more by donating the royalties earned from a publicly available printing.

The restricted distribution of the Tales also seemed a rather cruel act coming from such a benevolent person. I have no doubt that every Harry Potter fanatic would love to take in every word on each of the Tales's 157 pages. By confirming the existence of the book and denying all but a few people access, Ms. Rowling disappointed many.

Fortunately, though, Amazon.com — not a narcissistic, reclusive rare book collector — purchased the one copy available to members of the public with the purchasing power to acquire a $4 million book. Employees of the Seattle-based retailer have also confirmed that the company will take their copy of Tales of the Beedle Bard on a book tour to libraries across the United States.

But, when I gave the matter more thought, I realized the lunacy of the situation. Amazon.com paid four million dollars for a book! Few volumes have ever fetched such huge sums at auction. An original Guttenberg Bible or a copy of Shakespeare's First Folio might garner a $5 million bid, but the average rare book — a first edition of Joyce's Ulysses or Dickens's Oilver Twist — would only muster $20 or $30 thousand, even if it were in mint condition with the original dust jacket. In fact, the expert appraisers and auctioneers at Sotheby's only expected Tales of the Beedle Bard to fetch $100,000, which, in and of itself, would have been an exceptional price.

I enjoyed Harry Potter as much as the next person, and I think its remarkable popularity has earned it a special place in the history of literature. Putting a derivative work on the level of Shakespeare, however, is absolutely outrageous.

But what do I know? Perhaps, 2,000 years from now, Nad Umber will pen The Potter Prophecy, a mystery-thriller about a lost manuscript that casts doubts onto accepted religious beliefs.

At this week's climate summit in Bali, Indonesia, the negotiations boiled down to this:

Most of the World: We should all agree to legally binding climate change targets.
The United States: We won't do anything unless China and India do something.

On one level, I understand the United States's argument. It makes no sense to allow China and India to continue growing at a breakneck pace with little or no regard for the environment. But that does not mean the United States should stick to the status quo. Despite what Barack Obama or Mitt Romney might argue, spending a few billion dollars to fund dead-end ethanol projects in Iowa does not amount to strong action to combat climate change.

Rather, the United States should take the lead. We should stop acting like a spoiled two-year-old and take clear, decisive action. George W. Bush might have a legitimate reason to call himself the "leader of the free world" if he actually took the lead on climate change, or, for that matter, any other issue. It makes infinitely more sense for the United States to, say, impose a two dollar per gallon gasoline tax, which would help the environment and then some, than to sit around and whine about China.

As I have opined on more than one occasion, the United States stands to gain far more than cleaner air by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. By reducing our demand for oil, and subsequently driving down the price of crude, we could significantly weaken the grips of the world's petro-dictators, which would put backward-thinking men like Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez out of power and make the world a safer, friendlier place for everyone. We would also give a much-needed jolt of capital investment and competitive edge to our nascent green technology firms.

What's more, though, by taking the moral high ground on the climate change issue, rather than continuing to trudge around in moral limbo, the United States would do wonders for its battered image. Our strong stance vis-à-vis global warming might also compel India and China to take action. Whatever flaws we may have, many people in China and India look up to us, and, more importantly, the governments of those countries have a strong desire to engage us in a bout of one-upsmanship.

Fortunately, though, an environmental superiority complex has none of the security risks that come along with a nuclear arms superiority complex.

So, Mr. Bush, skip your Sunday morning bike ride, put on a few extra ounces of weight, and take the lead on climate change. You will be thanked.