Last Friday's New York Times contained, as usual, an essay by David Brooks and said essay commented on the vice presidential debate. Biden represented past eras and generations of regionalism, the accent here being on expression, and brought Mr. Brooks back to "kitchen tables in working class Catholic neighborhoods. . ." in which exchanges were hot and not cool.

Later Mr. Brooks states his perception Ryan often veered to policy when character was implied in the topic of the moment, and then the following sentence appears:

"I would not say [Ryan] defined a personality as firmly as he might of, but he did an excellent job of demonstrating policy professionalism."

Funny, last I "looked" I really think the phrase should have contained "might have". One of the first places I "looked" was in the crucible of Catholic education which does emphasize proper grammar AND [YOU] WILL GET IT RIGHT.

Some (careful on the qualifiers, Dan) free thinking writing teachers and of course nominally conservative ones I've encountered give credit to this education as one which produces (careful on the verbs----thank you, Dan) folks with better command of language and, well, basics.

And stop leaning on the parenthesis' !

Okay, squirming here (as are you?): I want to post this essay and get off to errands. Catholic education told me, yes, start early and then work long and hard. So many things in this essay start to look questionable and with this ultra-typewriter, as I would have regarded it in those grueling fountain-pen days, lends itself to editing and interjections. But it's only one essay, so much length, more later providing I'm not as lazy as I was told back then.

What should have been the main point I was writing-----of? Did this education contribute to my character? Open to debate.