|Latest updated page
"that" vs. "which"
Sometimes I like learning grammar and, following up on an an
earlier exploration of who versus whom, here,
today I took another look at that
Here's the synopsis: use that when introducing a
description that identifies or singles out the noun from
others. The lawn mower that is broken is in the
garage. (There's multiple lawn mowers and we're talking
about just one of them.) The lawn mower, which is
broken, is in the garage. (There's not any question of
multiple lawn mowers, we're merely supplying additional
information about the lawnmower, which requires a comma before
the which.) Sometimes, though rarely, you can
also use a which not just to add information, but to
single out, like a that. Find out more about
these mysterious defining whiches on my "That Vs.
Which" page here.
posted May 16, 2:04 pm
Gun proliferation, as satirized in experimental rock group Negativland's
song "Sycamore," here,
which satirically juxtaposes a Bay Area real estate pitch
against a manipulative gun lobby political ad, has gotten totally out
of control. The country drifts between massacres,
and the White House weakly tells us that after a gun massacre is
no time to talk about guns, as detailed in Alex Koppelman's December 14, 2012 New Yorker blog post "The Right Day to Talk About Guns"
The gun lobby, with lawmakers in its pocket, presses its preposterous vision of
America-as-shooting alley, pleading for ever still more guns
to prevent gun shooting, as a December 21, 2012 article by Forbes contributor Jeffrey Brown, "What the NRA Is Assuming (and Why They Are Wrong)"
had an assault weapons ban but Bush—bleagh—let it expire in 2004, as described in Josh Harkinson's January, 2012
Mother Jones article "Who Killed the Assault
Weapons Ban?" here.
Since then, mass shootings have only increased, relentlessly. There was
the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater last July,
at a Wisconsin Sikh temple last August, at a Minneapolis manufacturer in September, and then,
unacceptably, the horrific slaughter at a Connecticut elementary school in
December. 25 of the 62 mass shootings since 1982 have happened
after 2005, seven of them in 2012,
as a February 27, 2013 Mother Jones article by Mark Follman, Gavin
Aronsen, and Deanna Pan, "A Guide to Mass Shootings in
America," goes on to describe here.
But so tight is the gun lobby's stranglehold on our
throat that four months after the Newtown massacre and two
days after the Boston Marathon bombing, our dysfunctional
Senate can't even pass an anemic background check law,
even when the majority of the public supports it, as detailed
in Rebekah Metzler's April 29, 2013 U.S. News article, "Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill"
much less pass any legislation that might curb the problem.
What can you do? Find out who your representative is here,
call them and tell them you don't care what their gun lobby
tells them, you want gun control, including a ban on assault
weapons, and you want it now.
posted May 2, 2013 8:40 pm
I think Crate & Barrel is the place to go for
aesthetically beautiful furniture at reasonable prices.
So it was disappointing to find out that all their sofas, as
well as virtually all sofas currently being manufactured for the United States are
still, thanks to a misguided
California law, treated with carcinogenic fire retardants.
Over time, the retardant seeps out to raise the
risk of cancer for people who use the couch. A
September 6, 2012 New York
Times article by
Dashka Slater asks "How Dangerous Is
Your Couch?," here,
describing a widely used fire retardant called chlorinated tris as "a mutagen"
that "should not be used." A May 6, 2012
Chicago Tribune article by Michael Hawthorne, "Testing
Shows Treated Foam Offers No
Safety Benefit," here,
shows how studies indicate furniture treated with fire
retardant burns just as fast as furniture without.
An October 31, 2012 Science KQED post by Liza Gross here
suggests that the chemical properties making a fire retardant resist
flame apparently are inseparable from the
properties that damage living tissue and goes on to
describe the discouraging
response of manufacturers, which has been to play a game of chemical
whack-a-mole by simply switching one toxic fire retardant
with another. A December 7, 2012 Consumers Digest
gives hope that California may revise its law in time for
retardant-free couches for fall, 2013. But my preferred
apartment furnishing source Crate & Barrel—
according to an e-mail I received from them today—continues to sell toxic
furniture despite knowing about
the danger: after
they have "sold through" their furniture
manufactured with chlorinated tris, according to the e-mail, they will sell furniture
with foam infused by a new fire retardant "from the
phosphorous/ phosphate [sic] family" (the e-mail
misspelled the word "phosphorus") that has a secret
"proprietary" formula. Read the e-mail here.
What can you do? If you want to ask them to sell cleaner
furniture, contact them here.
posted March 14, 2013, 7:22 pm
For entries posted prior to 2013, I invite you to my