Skip to main content

Fart Proudly and Write Poorly

Benjamin Franklin said, "Fart proudly," and I know this is true because Carl Japiske wrote a book entitled Fart Proudly: Writings of Benjamin Franklin You Never Read in School, which you can buy at Amazon.com (which is a corporate giant that would never lie about these things).

It actually has nothing to do with this post, except that it made for a catchy title (and possibly prepares you for the poor writing to follow).

I pick this up from Environmental Economics--How to Write a Research Paper--wherein the author explains the text of his department's guide to writing in ... shall we say, more pragmatic terms.

My favorite example:

3) What do you mean by 'high standards of scholarship and exposition'?

Handbook: The manuscript must be free of glaring technical and expository mistakes.

Me: Write poorly. OK, not poorly, but like other economists. Read a bunch of journal articles and follow their style. Most economists have no formal training in writing and it shows--but at least it's consistent. So instead of trying to revolutionize the way economists write, follow the leaders--take easy concepts and make them sound complicated. Instead of writing "when prices go up, people buy less," write "Price and quantity demanded are inversely related." Instead of writing "The next dollar is worth less than the last one," write, "Consumer preferences exhibit diminishing marginal utility of income" or "The indirect utility function is assumed to be quasi-concave in income." Trust me, it's always better to sound smart than to write clearly.


I think I've got it. Instead of saying, "When statists talk, freedom disappears," I should say, "When advocates of involuntary communitarian philosophies bloviate, the ability to exercise unfettered choice in a free market exhibits a downward spiral."

Wow, I could have been an economist.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"When advocates of involuntary communitarian philosophies bloviate, the ability to exercise unfettered choice in a free market exhibits a downward spiral."

Or more obtusely, "when Bill O'Riely bloviates, he also indoctrinates. When he goes outside of the studio pushes Barack Obama staffers and insults Ron Paul supports because he works for a meglomaniac and has become one himself thus limiting all of our ability to make intelligent choices as he laps his corporate satan's nutsack." Is that clear writing?
Accurate but still wordy I think.

How about: "When O'Rielly exchanges mouthing off incoherently for pushing people he disagrees with, he proves himself to be the nutcase we all thought he was."
Anonymous said…
Much more consice. But I still like the idea of a corporate satan's nutsack- as vulgar as that is- to express the breadth of the issue.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...