Arizona...again

[Chris James]

Many years ago, Federal courts decided that no one could be forced to attend a religious based program or sentenced into it by the lower state court. Back then it was the Alcoholics Anonymous program and their twelve steps based upon religious principles. This first happened in Delaware and they had to come up with an alternative for the non-religious.

Now here we go again, this time in Arizona and from a completely new angle. The state has colluded with the Catholic Church this time...is anyone surprised?

http://www.transadvocate.com/arizona-transgender-woman-monica-jones-on-trial-for-refusing-project-rose_n_13049.htm

Not only is this discrimination towards the transgendered it is also a clear violation of the separation of church and state. By refusing to participate in a religious program this transgendered woman is facing criminal sanctions in the Arizona court.

There is a good deal wrong with this...bring on the lawyers. I wonder how long the citizens of Arizona are going to keep paying legal fees for these follies? Hate to be a taxpayer there.

[Cole Parker]

It's a little off point, but I read the article and found the writing a bit, uh, challenged.

Could anyone edit this for me: Jones has sequentially becoming a local and national icon for the woman previously targeted by this program with it’s 70% fail rate.

C

[Graeme]

Typo -- sequentially should be consequently or subsequently.

EDIT TO ADD:

One of the comments also made a point about the grammar, and the author apologised but she wrote it quickly after getting permission from Jordan to do so.

[Cole Parker]

Also the 'becoming' should be 'become' and the 'it's' should be 'its'. That wasn't the only challenged paragraph, either. An apology doesn't seem enough. Tar and feathers, maybe?

C

[Chris James]

You know, Cole, tar and feathering often killed the recipient of such treatment...is that what you advocate for someone who makes a few typos? I imagine the poor author is working alone to present a current topic and doesn't have a handful of editors to correct her work like some people I know.

[Cole Parker]

You know, Cole, tar and feathering often killed the recipient of such treatment...is that what you advocate for someone who makes a few typos? I imagine the poor author is working alone to present a current topic and doesn't have a handful of editors to correct her work like some people I know.

Hey, I'm a great advocate of editors. If she needs one, and I can't say that for sure after only reading one piece of hers even if that piece sorely suggests she does, then I'd guess she should find one. You must admit, that pieces was exceptionally sloppy. Any of the writers here would be embarrassed to submit something like that.

C

[Chris James]

I sure am glad I posted an article about the inequality of treatment for transgendered people in the State of Arizona. Perhaps some readers are not interested in the collaboration of church and state who are dealing out criminal judgments on American citizens.

I don't imagine many news blogs are covering this subject although I did see a more perfectly worded story on Pink News if that is what the readers need to absorb the facts of this injustice. I am generally for the underdog.

[Graeme]

You must admit, that pieces was exceptionally sloppy. Any of the writers here would be embarrassed to submit something like that.

Hmm...

[colinian]

You know, Cole, tar and feathering often killed the recipient of such treatment...is that what you advocate for someone who makes a few typos? I imagine the poor author is working alone to present a current topic and doesn't have a handful of editors to correct her work like some people I know.

I agree with Cole. My creative writing teachers in intermediate school and high school, and my instructors at the university level, taught us that anyone who writes for publication should learn how to spell (and how to use a spell checker) and basic grammar, and (perhaps most importantly) the value of self-editing. If someone's sloppy writing is published, they automatically make themselves a target.

Colin

[Graeme]

There's different levels of publishing, though. A forum post is 'publishing' but (despite my little dig above) we don't hold up forum posts to the same level of quality as what we do in a story. That news article is more a blog entry than a news report. As such, it should be of a higher quality than a forum posts, for example, but not necessarily at the level of a book or news report.

As an aside, I'm seeing more and more errors in news reports at reputable websites. I see that as a function of trying to get the news out quickly, and hence not enough care being taken to proof-read all news reports thoroughly before posting.

[DesDownunder]

Proof-reading costs time and money, and additionally requires someone with the will and skill to do it.

[Merkin]

Web-site news reporters tend to be caught up in their particular topics of interest, and enthusiasm frequently drives the writing right past the copy editor (if they have one). Alas, we see the same problems with bad and uncorrected writing in the print newspapers, too, although these tend to be victims of economic woes. Falling readership and diminished advertising revenue have resulted in pared-down staffs and the hiring of young wanna-be reporters at low cost. Their writings have very little oversight, as more and more senior editors and seasoned copy desk and editorial staffers are made redundant.

[Addym Kehris]

Okay, this is effing rediculous. I know you people like to digress from time to time, but what happened to the original point of this praticular forum. What, does no one have an opinion about the injustice of it all?

Has there been one damn comment about the content of the article? No, everyone seems to feel that the content is unimportant.

Very sad.

[Graeme]

Has there been one damn comment about the content of the article? No, everyone seems to feel that the content is unimportant.

I don't feel that the content is unimportant. I just don't have anything to add to what the article said. I can, if you like, copy and paste the article as a comment, but I don't feel that that is useful.

The other thing is that, as per the article, the issue raised in the original post is going through the court system. It is quite possible that the situation will be rectified, in which case it shows that the process can work -- if a problem is found, it is raised and assessed, and, where relevant, corrected.

Until the court case is decided, there's not much to say or do. If the court case is decided in a way that I feel is inappropriate then I'll express my outrage.

[Addym Kehris]

Typo -- sequentially should be consequently or subsequently.

Well, since we've digressed this far:

Sorry to disagree with you and Cole, but sequentially is perfectly acceptable in this instance. The writer is saying that Jones has become a local icon first and that led to becoming a national icon. That is two sequential steps.

[Graeme]

Well, since we've digressed this far:

Sorry to disagree with you and Cole, but sequentially is perfectly acceptable in this instance. The writer is saying that Jones has become a local icon first and that led to becoming a national icon. That is two sequential steps.

Plausible, but was that the intent? The intent determines whether or not sequentially was the desired word. I am of the opinion that it's more likely to be a typo, but I will concede that what's written may be what was intended. My argument for it being a typo is that the word 'sequentially' adds nothing to the story and could've been excluded (as the order of local vs national icon status seems irrelevant for the issue), while consequently or subsequently shows that the icon status derived from the events mentioned earlier in the article -- something that is relevant.

[Addym Kehris]

Oh please, Graeme, let's try to avoid mindreading here. The sentence itself adequately sets forth the intent. It is a perfectly acceptable use of the English language.

Plausible, but was that the intent? The intent determines whether or not sequentially was the desired word. I am of the opinion that it's more likely to be a typo, but I will concede that what's written may be what was intended. My argument for it being a typo is that the word 'sequentially' adds nothing to the story and could've been excluded (as the order of local vs national icon status seems irrelevant for the issue), while consequently or subsequently shows that the icon status derived from the events mentioned earlier in the article -- something that is relevant.

Here you're attempting to define the relevancy by your own standard, I believe. By reading the sentence literally, we see that Jones was a local icon for a time before the national icon status came into effect. This says to me that this was simply a local story that could very well have faded into obscurity had it not been for the subsequent national exposure the incident received. I don't find that sequence of events irrelevant in the least. I find it encouraging to know that the national press has taken up the banner of this issue and not allowed it to fade into some state's archives.

Now please, before anyone gets their knickers in a bunch, I can agree that consequently and subsequently could have been used. But there is nothing what so ever grammatically wrong with the sentence. I've had English professors that would have applauded the unique and concise construction of that sentence...as well as a few editors.

[Cole Parker]

I didn't want to jump into the fray here, having already caused enough problems unintentionally. But I simply can't let that statement go unchallenged. I'm constitutionally unable. Here's the sentence:

Jones has sequentially becoming a local and national icon for the woman previously targeted by this program with it’s 70% fail rate.

And here is Addym's rebuttal:

But there is nothing what so ever grammatically wrong with the sentence. I've had English professors that would have applauded the unique and concise construction of that sentence...as well as a few editors.

All I can say, in the kindest possible way, is: I bet to differ.

C

[Addym Kehris]

Yup, Cole got me. Damned if you aren't correct. I got so caught up in the 'sequentially' issue that I completely glossed over the glaring error of 'becoming', which should be "become". In addition, the word 'for' should be replaced with 'as'.

So, I apologize for becoming so focused on one aspect of the problem that I failed to address the remainder of the issues present. Thank you, Cole.

[Cole Parker]

Thank you for being so gracious. It's one of the things that is so unusual here. We tend to be polite to each other! I haven't seen that done so well elsewhere, and it's one of the reasons it's such a joy to be here.

C

[DesDownunder]