Good writing does its job effectively and subtly, gracefully guiding the reader along. Bad writing, however, is like a nest of termites in your wall. You never see the damage it does, but your clients and customers notice. Go here to see how G.D. Gearino can help.

There has been much written about Citizens United vs. FEC, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prompted dissent from no less a person than President Obama in his State of the Union address last week. (If you approved — and I didn’t — then presumably you would have been OK — and I wouldn’t have — with George W. Bush delivering a similar televised rebuke to justices who had no choice but to sit quietly and take it. It’s cheap no matter who does it.) But if you’re in the mood for further discussion of the issue, go here for famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams’ thoughts. It’s the smartest thing I’ve read on the subject.

Uncle Frank (who’s not really my uncle, and who might be a fugitive from justice for all I know, but that’s how he signs his name when he writes) sent along a link to this Web page. You probably won’t be able to read it, since it’s in Cyrillic, but it’s worth visiting for the images. It seems to be a record collector’s showcase for some of the bizarre old albums he’s acquired. Whatever the case, it’s hilarious. There are a few exposed bosoms, but it’s nothing that’ll get you in trouble at work unless you’re employed by the Southern Baptist Convention. My favorite is the album called “Music for Pleasure Time,” which shows a happy young woman with an arrow in her chest. Not my idea of pleasure, but I don’t judge.

Like everyone else, I have a secret life. I’ll keep mine a secret no more: I’m the Sleep Blogger. For the past two months, I’ve been writing about the world of slumber. No shilling, no selling, no pleasure arrows to the chest. Just good, clean fun. Check it out, and if you want to get the comment party started, be my guest.

What follows is an excerpt from a recent message sent to News & Observers staffers about the departure of a fellow journalist, who got caught in the latest round of job-cutting at the paper. Although some readers will figure out who this was written about, I’ve left out his name. (I’m a blogger with scruples — surely an oxymoron.)

[He] came to the paper as a police reporter. Prior to becoming an editor, his reporting career included: education reporter,  state government reporter, Washington correspondent, general assignment reporter, and investigative reporter.
      Before formally joining with Pat Stith to form the I-Team, [he] did a series of stories on then-Secretary of State Rufus Edminsten and his performance in office that led to a resignation and criminal investigation. He also had a powerful impact in reporting on a $3.7 million DOT payment to a developer for land that was appraised for far less.
      As a member of the I-Team, [he] reported on numerous conflicts of interest and the triumph of politics over professionalism at DOT, including uncovering the questionable $100,000 payment to DMV worker Algie Toomer. He also investigated problems with drugs produced by GlaxoSmithKline and produced a series on the long waits by disabled people to get Social Security disability benefits. …
      In 1999, he was chosen for the prestigious Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University.
      In 2004, [he] became Capitol/State editor. In that position, he led his team to important stories about the influence of money in politics and holding elected officials accountable. He developed reporting that helped readers understand, and get ahead of, legislative decisions on important issues. He encouraged the staff to inject humanity and fun in the coverage of government.
      During the 2008 election season, our coverage under [the departing staffer] was distinguished by expansive coverage of issues and holding candidates accountable for the truthfulness of their statements and political advertising. …
       In the last 15 years, The N&O rose from being a good regional newspaper to become one of the best in the country.  [He] was a big part of that transformation. His commitment to quality journalism was unmatched.

Pretty impressive, huh? I’m astonished that he was pushed out the door, especially since it’s accepted as absolute truth these days that the key to a newspaper’s survival is found in exactly the kind of work this fellow did for the N&O.

And let it be noted that the N&O continues to keep a movie reviewer on staff. Odd, those priorities.

(1) This winter of 2009-10 seems to be heading into the record books as a particularly cold one, and that has caused people to ask (with varying degrees of snark) whatever happened to global warming. Climate scientists assured the Associated Press that the current cold snap doesn’t undermine warming theory:

“It’s part of natural variability,” said Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. With global warming, he said, “we’ll still have record cold temperatures. We’ll just have fewer of them.”

Actually, that makes sense to me. Within any long-term trend are small, temporary counter-trends. So to my progressive friends I make this offer: I’ll acknowledge that this winter doesn’t disprove global warming if you’ll acknowledge that the recent economic setback doesn’t disprove that an appropriately regulated free market is the best path to prosperity. After all, one contrary blip doesn’t prove much — right?

(2) Newsweek magazine didn’t set out three weeks ago to muddy the distinctions between conservatives and liberals, but that’s exactly what its piece on lawyer Ted Olson accomplished. Olson, who has played key roles in several Republican administrations, is now seeking to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriages. As the magazine explains:

As a conservative, [Olson] says he believes in individual liberty and freedom from government interference in the private lives of citizens. Discriminating against people because of sexual orientation is a violation of both.

Exactly. That’s a classically conservative line of thinking. In fact, I’d push that argument even further along. The government should get out of the business of certifying marriages entirely. If two people feel that their union needs a blessing, let churches provide it (or not, depending on the church’s belief). What business does government have refereeing who marries and who doesn’t?