MbShea@PWP@English@UMCP

Good morning, hot beverage-obsessed!

We approach spring break, which splits up our drafting/reviewing/revising.  Never fear, I will support you through this.  I hope you can cogitate upon the problem during the break. Nothing improves thinking/writing more than time, punctuated by insight and consideration.

One resource, especially for those who want to work ahead is this Q&A document from previous sections. The Google doc is locked but the questions are perennial.

Now, let's talk about thinking.  Here are few points about why this recommendation memo is so hard-->

• incommensurability -- without common measure (option seven-minute video explainer)
• life cycle assessment/analysis (LCA) -- a cradle-to-grave analysis that primarily uses the frame of energy efficient.
  • Note: LCA analysis also has boundaries.  For example, LCA experts (I am one, actually), note aspects like national, international, and even regional boundaries (geographic).  We also deal with the problem of problem framing, sometimes calling this pre-analytical condition a boundary edge. For example, LCA work is starting to consider human health aspects, though this work is new and without many data sets to work with.
    • I am aware of emerging LCA work (Germany, primarily, with EU colleagues) on material accumulation chains, that now encompass the physical limits of recycling, landfilling, incineration, and the like.  Think: solid waste is pollution that takes space when we sink the material.
    • I am also aware of efforts to look at the ocean, with particular problems for both climate change (ocean warming is part of planetary warming) and accumulation of ocean plastic.  A sub area of concern here is bioaccumulation in food chains/food security/human health.
• human problem-solving is complex and we do truly need to work on more than one problem at a time
  • however, our analysis typically must drill down to details and portions of problems
  • later, we can attempt synthesis and priority areas for human problem-solving
• human problem require knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities.  One conjecture would be why do we keep using single-use disposal options when we KNOW that these choices have serious environmental outcome that harm us all?
  • You can look at the free rider problem (explains a rational for that behavior) from economics and
  • the idea of nudging people in complex systems toward pro-social behavior

---

Now, many examples about the Oxford comma and why/how you should use in 99% of all writing. TLDR? Use the Oxford comma.  We start with the book inscription example, classic; I was taught with the first example, circa 1978.

To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

To my parents, J.K. Rowling and God.

To my parents, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

Now, we move to problems in newsprint. However, we should note that the paper and magazine style choices do not require an Oxford comma (will elaborate in class). In a newspaper account of a documentary about Merle Haggard:

Among those interviewed were his two ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall.

These two preceding examples are from Theresa and Nielson Hayden. Here is another doosie that cries out for a serial or Oxford comma. Many of these examples appear in the serial comma entry at Wikipedia. I can attest, as both a student and teacher, that these examples and similar ones appeared in teaching contexts even before they were placed in Wikipedia.  I am sourcing these, again, as object lessons in citation, giving credit, sharing common knowledge, and building ethos with you.

The Times once published an unintentionally humorous description of a Peter Ustinov documentary, noting that

"highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector."

Now, to be clear, the serial comma does not always solve ambiguity problems, again captured in Wikipedia:

They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook –

• They went to Oregon with Betty, who was a maid and a cook. (One person)
• They went to Oregon with Betty, both a maid and a cook. (One person)
• They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and cook. (One person)
• They went to Oregon with Betty (a maid) and a cook. (Two people)
• They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and with a cook. (Two people)
• They went to Oregon with Betty – a maid – and a cook. (Two people)
• They went to Oregon with the maid Betty and a cook. (Two people)
• They went to Oregon with a cook and Betty, a maid. (Two people)
• They went to Oregon with Betty as well as a maid and a cook. (Three people)
• They went to Oregon with Betty and a maid and a cook. (Three people)
• They went to Oregon with Betty, one maid and a cook. (Three people)
• They went to Oregon with a maid, a cook, and Betty. (Three people)

I use italics to help you focus on nuance meaning.  Punctuation helps us with nuance, however imperfectly.

We can also look at the grocery list problem (me and so many teachers, not necessarily Wikipedia): 

buying  bread, jam, coffee, cream, juice, eggs, and bacon. VS

eating toast and jam, coffee and cream, juice, and bacon and eggs

Finally, we have a theme song to remember this punctuation convention.