Winter of discontent

Like a veritable Logo-calypse, loaded words and phrases were coming down together with the snow in reports about the blizzard that pulverized the region (Wash.Times). Although this Snowmageddon still has a long road ahead of it with several major cities picking up large amounts of snow (The Weather Channel), it already left a wake of damage (CBS). The storm even canceled flights in several cities (CNN), with wind gusts creating nearwhite conditions (The Weather Channel). Halfway across the chasm [sic] of winter, the storm charged over the Appalachians (NYT) as this was becoming an increasingly dangerous winter storm forecast complete with high snowfall rates and blinding snow. (The Weather Channel).
Some journalists, maybe in an attempt to fight off the bitter cold, obviously went into overdrive, some slipped badly, and some simply lost sight of where they were going.
The NYT reported that “downed trees and power lines blocked the Capitol Limited, stranding and infuriating passengers" (NYT). For support, a train passenger is quoted saying, “Nobody can do anything about the weather, but be truthful, keep us informed.” Although the first sentence suggests otherwise, what infuriated the passengers were not the downed trees and power lines but rather the Amtrak’s officials who neglected to tell the travelers that their snowbound train wasn’t going to go anywhere soon.
After fifteen hours of waiting, another passenger complained that “No one’s cleaned up the bathrooms, and I’m worried about the germs my kids could get.” But “Amtrak reached out to a local Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant.” Were its employees coming by to clean the bathrooms? Far from it. They “supplied dinner for the passengers,” most likely only making the bathroom problem worse.
Then, in a blizzard of information, the fact that “The National Guard was deployed to assist the police and people trapped on roads” precedes but seems to be in no way connected to the story of “a father and son, who had stopped on I 81 [in Virginia] to help a motorist [and] were killed Friday when a tractor-trailer struck them.” The National Guard and all its efforts disappeared without a word from the scene – probably snowed under.
If ideas do not smoothly merge into one another, connect logically and thus allow the reader to follow a clearly paved path, an article quickly resembles a giant snowball fight with the reader’s head as the pitiable target.
Transitional tags can help organize ideas and establish a relationship, such as, e.g., the conjunction while to emphasize the difference between two ideas: Most roads were closed while trains still operated.
Timely enough, Thomas Friedman sent a postcard from some warmer region, reporting that in Yemen, “more than 70% of government income comes from dwindling oil exports, while 70% of Yemenis are illiterate and 15% of kids are not in school.” The connection - or difference - between the dwindling oil resources and illiteracy – if it exists – remains for the reader to figure out.
Worse than making no connections and leaving the reader stranded in the middle of nowhere is making false connections that insult one’s logic. New Albany Citizens campaigned in favor of finally making it legal to buy a bottle of beer. They argued that “the city, whose population is about 8,000, would never grow without restaurants, and nice restaurants would never arrive if they could not serve alcohol.” Their opponents, not seeing the logical fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc = questionable cause-effect relationship) in this argument, paid them back in their own coin, calling this “a bunch of baloney” since other cities do allow alcohol but “are not exactly flourishing” either. Another New Albany citizen would say that this rebuttal is “Pointless... like giving caviar to an elephant” (W. Faulkner) because the teetotalers falsely assume that because two things occur together, they must be causally related; correlation, however, is possible without causation.
Really insulting, though, is a writer who expects the reader to swallow a red herring, used to throw hunting dogs off the trail of the prey – or unsuspecting readers off the real issue. “Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science” (Wash. Times). That one area of the U.S. has been blanketed with snow is not evidence to support such a sweeping conclusion, and to welcome the recent Snopocalypse as proof that we don't have to rethink the way we live now is nothing but a snow job.

Here is a list of some useful transitional words:

to add: again, also, and, and then, besides, equally important, finally, first, further, furthermore, in addition, in the first place, last, moreover, next, second, still, too
to compare: also, in the same way, likewise, similarly
to make a concession: granted, naturally, of course
to contrast: although, and yet, at the same time, but at the same time, despite that, even so, even though, for all that, however, in contrast, in spite of, instead, nevertheless, notwithstanding, on the contrary, on the other hand, otherwise, regardless, still, though, yet
to emphasize: certainly, indeed, in fact, of course
to exemplify or illustrate: after all, as an illustration, even, for example, for instance, in conclusion, indeed, in fact, in other words, in short, it is true, of course, namely, specifically, that is, to illustrate, thus, truly
to sum up: all in all, altogether, as has been said, finally, in brief, in conclusion, in other words, in particular, in short, in simpler terms, in summary, on the whole, that is, therefore, to put it differently, to summarize
to indicate time sequence: after a while, afterward, again, also, and then, as long as, at last, at length, at that time, before, besides, earlier, eventually, finally, formerly, further, furthermore, in addition, in the first place, in the past, last, lately, meanwhile, moreover, next, now, presently, second, shortly, simultaneously, since, so far, soon, still, subsequently, then, thereafter, too, until, until now, when

To avoid excessive usage of transitional tags, consider
• to refer to the main idea of the previous paragraph and begin the next one with a reference to this topic: insult one's logic → Really insulting
• repeating key words in each paragraph that help the reader to see the connection: The connection - or difference - between the... → Worse than making no connection ...

Comma Courtship

Something must have gone terribly wrong. “Girls will sit there with their friends for 15 minutes trying to figure out what punctuation to use in a text message.” What caused such an about-face and made girls fret about the correctness of their grammar just as much as about face make up or clothes? What else but the boys. Not that guys suddenly developed a crush on the Queen’s English. Fact is, however, that on today’s campuses they are frighteningly outnumbered (only 43% of the student body is male). Luckily, sociologists have brought attention to this eerie phenomenon, which most certainly needs to be recognized and addressed, and discovered the painful truth: “men have all the power to control” the dating scene. So, while the guys “don’t have to work that hard,” girls, who are concerned about hooking up with Mr. Right, “feel pressured to do more than they’re comfortable with.” If this means working on their punctuation, hail to the new math on campus.

The passive doesn't always augur well

There are, in fact, legitimate arguments to be made both for and against the passive voice. A short police report in a local newspaper may be worded like this:
A search was conducted of the apartment. Three loaded weapons were discovered between the mattresses and in the bottom drawer of a dresser. All three suspects were transported to the PD and advised of their rights. After waiving their rights, the suspects admitted they had received the guns from a friend, and it was determined they knew the guns were stolen.
It is obvious who conducted the search, found the weapons, transported the suspects to the PD, advised them of their rights and determined that the guns were plunder. Hence, nothing of importance would be added to this brief report and it also would be rather redundant if every sentence began with “police officers” conducted etc. For a similar reason, the Declaration of Independence declares “that all men are created equal.” For the Founding Fathers it was beyond any doubt that all human beings are created and “endowed with certain unalienable Rights” by their Creator .
In "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell states as one of his principal rules of composition, "Never use the passive where you can use the active." However, the passive voice often is utilized as a great self-protective strategy because with its aid any responsibility for actions taken can be avoided. Had the passive voice not been around since ancient times, politicians would have had to invent it. It serves them too well.
FDR in his first inaugural speech insisted that "the joy, the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits" before five times asserting that "it can be helped." Somehow somebody obviously had to be reminded of labor's joy and moral stimulation. The people? Most likely, but clearly saying so might not have been perceived well by an audience that had to endure the consequences of the Great Depression and an unemployment rate of a whopping 25%. And who is it who can help it? The government, one might assume. Yet, clearly pronouncing this would have meant clearly being committed to drastic changes.
About thirty years later, JFK's inaugural seemed to shed some light on this question of commitment for "there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures." These words suggest that the president will be personally engaged – until he moves on to the question of war and peace, saying that "only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." The passive voice now distracts from the speaker's role as the one who in fact will or will not deploy those weapons.
Ronald Reagan in 1981 takes the baton and nobly hails the victims of previous armed conflicts and "the sacrifice that so many thousands were called upon to make." Once more, some undisclosed entity had called for sacrifices, and the speaker – or better the government he embodies – is not personally responsible for deaths or damages.
Fast forward twenty years: George W. Bush, too, believed that "Americans are called upon" to do something, this time, however, not so much to make a sacrifice but to enact the promise that "everyone deserves a chance." However, it was another passive sentence for which he was lambasted, the notorious "Mistakes have been made." Beth Quinn disapproved of it because the passive voice “places the emphasis on the object of the sentence, not the subject.” Not so. The sentence in question does not even contain an object. What this sentence, and any passive sentence, does is placing the emphasis on the deed instead of the doer. “An active version would be, I made some mistakes. That way, it's clear [whose] very own self is to blame. But no. We just have some vague acknowledgment on the part of The Decider (who apparently is not The Mistaker) that somehow, who knows how, [something] has been less than stellar.” So far, Beth Quinn is perfectly right, but what follows is rather less than stellar. “Saying that mistakes have been made is like saying, the house caught fire. It’s as though the house is somehow to blame for burning up. See?” No, I don’t. After all, objects can in fact catch fire without a particular person being responsible for it. Wood can catch fire from a match, obviously, but also from focused light, friction, lightning, or something else that is already burning. Thus “The house caught fire” is a sentence in active voice leaving it completely open whether the fire was an accident or arson. Passive voice would say, “The house was set on fire,” implying but not declaring a guilty party.
Beth Quinn then offers “some more examples of passive voice, offered so I can stick to my one point and really drive that point home.” Well, don’t drive so fast: “The gun went off. (As I'm sure you know, guns do this on their own all the time.)” Not passive voice! Yes, it omits the person who pulled the trigger, but again accidents happen. In the passive voice, the sentence would read, “The gun was fired,” indicating that it was not an accident although the identity of the perpetrator has not been established yet.
“And one more, taken from an incident at the White House a few years ago: The pretzel got lodged in President Bush's throat. (Clearly, it was the pretzel's fault for getting stuck where it was unwelcome.)” Right! Soft pretzels would have been a better choice. They are easier to swallow and are much more versatile since they can be eaten with everything from mustard to chocolate.
Well, the president obviously made a mistake here, but let’s move forward and not get stuck in Pretzel Logic. After all, "Our union can be perfected" (B. Obama in Chicago, 11/4/08).

So, what is this contentious passive voice?

In the passive, the object of the verb becomes the subject: Columbus discovered America in 1492 becomes America was discovered by Columbus in 1492. The subject of the active sentence (Columbus) becomes the agent (by Columbus) in the passive sentence.

A sentence in the passive voice is constructed of

The subject = the receiver of the action_________Amercia
+ a form of to be followed by a past participle____ was discovered
[+ the doer or agent performing the action]______[by Columbus] in 1492.

The passive often is used without mentioning the agent because it is either unknown or of no importance who performed the deed. America was discovered in 1492 focuses the attention on the event (the discovery of a new continent) rather than on the person who discovered this continent.

In informal English, the passive can be formed using to get (He got married).

The stative passive describes a status or condition, which may exist over a period of time, rather than an action. It is formed with with a form of the verb to be + a past participle, which functions more or less as an adjective {The window is closed (participle)./ The window is open (adjective).}
Many stative passive verbs are followed by prepositions other than by (Azar, English Grammar):
accustomed to, acquainted with, addicted to, annoyed with, by, associated with, bored with/by, cluttered with, composed of, concerned about, connected to, coordinated with, covered with, crowded with, dedicated to, devoted to, disappointed in/with, discriminated against, divorced from, done with, dressed in, engaged to, equipped with, excited about, opposed to, exhausted from, exposed to, filled with, finished with, frightened of/by, gone from, interested in, involved in, known for, limited to, located in, made of, married to, opposed to, pleased with, prepared for, protected from, provided with, qualified for, related to, remembered for, satisfied with, scared of/by, terrified of/by, tired of/from, worried about