You Are Not Well At Grammar

Not much time to write this week, so I'm going to pass along an excerpt from a terrific blog post I read on grammar usage by a blogger named Kyle Wiens:

If you think an apostrophe was one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, you will never work for me. If you think a semicolon is a regular colon with an identity crisis, I will not hire you. If you scatter commas into a sentence with all the discrimination of a shotgun, you might make it to the foyer before we politely escort you from the building.

Some might call my approach to grammar extreme, but I prefer Lynne Truss's more cuddly phraseology: I am a grammar "stickler." And, like Truss — author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves — I have a "zero tolerance approach" to grammar mistakes that make people look stupid.

Now, Truss and I disagree on what it means to have "zero tolerance." She thinks that people who mix up their itses "deserve to be struck by lightning, hacked up on the spot and buried in an unmarked grave," while I just think they deserve to be passed over for a job — even if they are otherwise qualified for the position.

Everyone who applies for a position my company takes a mandatory grammar test. Extenuating circumstances aside (dyslexia, English language learners, etc.), if job hopefuls can't distinguish between "to" and "too," their applications go into the bin.

Good grammar is credibility, especially on the internet. In blog posts, on Facebook statuses, in e-mails, and on company websites, your words are all you have. They are a projection of you in your physical absence. And, for better or worse, people judge you if you can't tell the difference between their, there, and they're.

On the face of it, my zero tolerance approach to grammar errors might seem a little unfair. After all, grammar has nothing to do with job performance, or creativity, or intelligence, right?

Wrong. If it takes someone more than 20 years to notice how to properly use "it's," then that's not a learning curve I'm comfortable with. So, even in this hyper-competitive market, I will pass on a great programmer who cannot write.

Grammar signifies more than just a person's ability to remember high school English. I've found that people who make fewer mistakes on a grammar test also make fewer mistakes when they are doing something completely unrelated to writing — like stocking shelves or labeling parts.

I hire people who care about those details. Applicants who don't think writing is important are likely to think lots of other (important) things also aren't important. And I guarantee that even if other companies aren't issuing grammar tests, they pay attention to sloppy mistakes on résumés. After all, sloppy is as sloppy does.

That's why I grammar test people who walk in the door looking for a job. Grammar is my litmus test. All applicants say they're detail-oriented; I just make my employees prove it.

Here's What Is The Matter With People

Lately I've been boiling down my frustration with the actions of others through a simple statement of, "What's the matter with people?"

I've finally decided that, for the betterment of humanity, I will try to answer this question.  I think it comes down to three overarching items:

1)  People want attention.  It doesn't even matter whether it's for good or bad reasons, as long as those who seek attention get it.  This is both the cause and effect of reality television.  It's bad enough that people want to make their entire lives a show for the public, but then that's further encouraged by compensating (and even making celebrities out of) people for their asinine behavior.

2)  People are stupid.  I wrote about this a few years ago, and it's only gotten worse.  Most people will believe anything they read or hear.  They have no filter, no ability to discern whether something passes the 'smell' test.  The internet / social media make this problem worse, because people are constantly relying on it for all of their information.  If the United States could devise a way to tax anyone who forwards an electronic message that has little or no basis in fact, we would quickly solve our deficit problem.

3)  People are slackers.  The children and grandchildren of the 'greatest generation' are not nearly as motivated as their ancestors.  It seems that for every two Americans who try to make an honest living, there is one who doesn't give a damn.  Sometimes to avoid life, that one will use extreme measures, e.g. unqualified government assistance, illegal activity, or even living with their too-coddling parents, to avoid getting a real job.  On the minimally plus side, I always say that we need people in the service industry too, to take care of me when I'm on vacation.

So that's what's the matter with people.  Now that I've provided the answers, someone please come up with the solutions.

This Year On RAGBRAI (2012)

Cycled the first leg of the 40th Register's Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa this week.  It went through my hometown as well as a few other towns I spent a lot of time in growing up, so there was extra interest for me.  Here are this year's comments, to extend what I wrote in 2011 and 2010 :

* In the past, I've always ridden in the middle or front-half of the ride, meaning an equal amount of riders were behind me and in front of me.  I've always wondered if I was missing something wild by doing that.  After all, the old saying is that RAGBRAI is like a mullet - business in the front, party in the back!

This year it so happened that I stayed well to the back of the ride, and it turns out you miss MORE that way.  Some of the roadside stands that looked like fun places to stop were getting ready to shut down, and the riders weren't that much fun to talk with, because they were all just trying to survive the heat/ride. (That's one reason they were in the back.)  You want to be around as many people as possible during the ride and every stop within the ride, that's the best way to enjoy it.

* A couple of new team names that caught my eye were take-offs of the LiveStrong organization.  They were BeerStrong, and LiverStrong.  I'm not sure it's good form to use the name of a cancer-fighting organization to promote heavy drinking.

* A lot of folks talk about drinking alcohol on RAGBRAI.  A lot of folks actually do it.  But I think more folks talk about it than do it, especially on the hottest day in Iowa since 1988.  The most overheard, overused phrase on RAGBRAI is, "You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning."  Most of them mean water.

* Ratio of fit, 20-something girls to overweight, 50+ year old men on the ride:  1-to-100.

RAGBRAI XL.  A little bit different than the RAGBRAI III I rode on in 1975.

The Less You Give, The More You Receive

On July 1, 2012, group retirement plan service providers are required by law to more fully disclose their fees.  These long-awaited federal regulations are primarily focused on 401(k) plans, to give both participants and sponsoring employers a more transparent view of the fees they are paying.

Why is this important?  Because whether you’re a 401(k) plan participant or not, low fees are at the heart of a good investment outcome for any portfolio.

According to a 2010 Morningstar study ¹ that encompassed a 5-year look-back period, low-cost funds categorically outperformed high-cost funds.  In fact, in every asset class over every time period, the least costly quintile of mutual funds produced higher total returns than the most expensive quintile.

Morningstar went so far as to say that expense ratios were the most dependable predictor of performance.  “Investors should make expense ratios a primary test in fund selection,” the study concluded.  “If there’s anything in the whole world of mutual funds that you can take to the bank, it’s that expense ratios help you make a better decision.”

As with 401(k) plans, the only way you can know whether your investment fees are low is to determine what those fees are, and how they compare with others.  If you have any doubt, contact someone who can help.

The Taxpayer Warrior Strikes Again

On July 2nd, The Des Moines Register smartly published another letter to the editor I sent them.  It went like this:

So Polk County supervisors are going to start paying part of their health insurance for the first time ever, effective July 1? It sounds like a great victory for taxpayers – until you consider it’s expected to save less than $3,000 annually.

In fact, those affected will only being paying between $15 and $25 per month for insurance premiums. While that’s more than zero, it’s hundreds of dollars less per month than most private sector employees pay.

Regardless, Supervisors Chairwoman Angela Connolly crowed, “We all have to pay our fair share in terms of insurance costs.” This is just another example of how far out of touch elected officials are with their constituents, and with the economy.

This took me all of 15 minutes to write and email to them, but I can confirm that I got a lot more than 15 minutes of enjoyment out of embarrassing a bunch of wasteful politicians!

These People Are Not Well

It's past time to add a few new members to my list of people who are Whacked Out In The Head (WOITH).

I haven't even mentioned this acronym for over six months, the last time when I was handicapping the field of Republican presidential nominees.

Based on her campaign after I wrote that, I'm elevating Michele Bachmann to full WOITH status.  Just like WOITH members Steve King and Bob Vander Plaats, if you pulled back her skin I'm pretty certain there's an alien creature underneath.

I'm at least going to add a politician to the WOITH list while I'm on the topic. Hmmm, so many to choose from...Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell is certainly deserving, but it has to be...my own State Senator, Brad Zaun.  Not only has he never met a social conservative issue he didn't like, but he also took on the duty of campaign manager for Bachmann when fellow WOITH member Kent Sorenson quit.  It couldn't be more perfectly symmetrical than that.

To save time, I'm just going to list my new WOITH members with no explanation.  If you don't know why they belong, I suggest you Google them:

Charlie Sheen (obvious and belated omission until now)

Jerry Sandusky

Anyone with a reality show on MTV

The entire Kardashian family

And as an honorary member, I also want to include the guy down my street who put a $60,000 house on a $30,000 lot.

Citizens Un-united

A few months ago, many beef-industry-reliant states got into a tizzy over media reports about 'pink slime.' This is in fact a derogatory name for a beef filler / by-product that's found in practically every package of ground beef.  (The beef industry prefers the name "lean finely textured beef.")

Anyway, the governors of these states held a press conference at a processing plant to complain about the way this filler was being characterized.  At this made-for-TV event, the mainstream media reporter who gave the 'pink slime' a national spotlight asked Iowa's governor a question - did his interest in this issue also stem from the fact the beef processor was one of his biggest political donors?

Of course, the governor responded with righteous indignation that someone would even think there was a connection.  Many others, including my own friends and acquaintances, agreed it was a cheap shot question from a self-aggrandizing reporter.

Hold on, now.  While this 'pink slime' deal was very overblown and a bit offensive, that question was not.  If politicians are going to accept political donations, they are fair game to be criticized when they appear to do favors for those donors, rightly or wrongly.  It doesn't matter if they actually happen to believe what they're saying, the appearance of impropriety is there.

Of course, this is just a microcosm of the current state of affairs in this country when it comes to money and politics.  Thanks to the Citizens United decision, money has never had a bigger influence in who gets what in the USA, and politicians have never been more brazen about doing favors for those who provide them with financial backing.

Senator John McCain, one of the few people who still can pass as a moderate Republican and a long-time voice for campaign finance reform, recently said about Citizens United, "There will be scandals associated with the worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st century.”  Will be?  It's been happening since the day the decision was made.

Even before that decision, that system was still broken.  PACs/SuperPACs and lobbyists have always had too much influence, mostly due to the access their money buys them.  I used to work for a large trade association, and it was no secret how this worked.  When raising money for the PAC, they openly stated  that money was how the game was played, and they needed to be a player.

Oh, but they didn't say that publicly.  Instead they had the gall to quote Thomas Jefferson, who once said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”  As if that meant Jefferson would support a PAC!  (Note - Thomas Jefferson also said, "The end of democracy will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."  Why didn't that trade association use that quote?  D-bags.)

What planet are elected officials on when they allow themselves to accept money from people and especially from corporations, yet don't think constituents or the media should question them about the consequences of that relationship?  It's legal bribery, with politicians who don't want to change it and an electorate that feels powerless to change it.