Pseudo-Random Thoughts
*One Space, Or Two? *Having disposed of trivial issues earlier today, I
can turn to something more important: Should you follow a period with
one space or two?
Farhood Manjoo is a fierce (I almost said rabid) one spacer
<http://www.slate.com/id/2281146/>.
What galls me about two-spacers isn't just their numbers. It's their
certainty that they're right. Over Thanksgiving dinner last year, I
asked people what they considered to be the "correct" number of
spaces between sentences. The diners included doctors, computer
programmers, and other highly accomplished professionals.
Everyone---everyone!---said it was proper to use two spaces. Some
people admitted to slipping sometimes and using a single space---but
when writing something formal, they were always careful to use two.
Others explained they mostly used a single space but felt guilty for
violating the two-space "rule." Still others said they used two
spaces all the time, and they were thrilled to be so proper. When I
pointed out that they were doing it wrong---that, in fact, the
correct way to end a sentence is with a period followed by a single,
proud, beautiful space---the table balked. "Who says two spaces is
wrong?" they wanted to know.
Here's's the same paragraph with two spaces, instead of one:
What galls me about two-spacers isn't just their numbers. It's
their certainty that they're right. Over Thanksgiving dinner last
year, I asked people what they considered to be the "correct" number
of spaces between sentences. The diners included doctors, computer
programmers, and other highly accomplished professionals.
Everyone---everyone!---said it was proper to use two spaces. Some
people admitted to slipping sometimes and using a single space---but
when writing something formal, they were always careful to use two.
Others explained they mostly used a single space but felt guilty
for violating the two-space "rule." Still others said they used two
spaces all the time, and they were thrilled to be so proper. When I
pointed out that they were doing it wrong---that, in fact, the
correct way to end a sentence is with a period followed by a single,
proud, beautiful space---the table balked. "Who says two spaces is
wrong?" they wanted to know.
I think the second paragraph looks a little better, but I doubt that
everyone will agree with me.
There is one great difference between my versions and Manjoo's; I am
using a typeface with serifs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif>, while
Manjoo is using a typeface without them. (You're seeing the Georgia
typeface, if you have it installed, as I hope you do. Otherwise you're
almost certainly seeing one of the ubiquitous Times Roman typefaces.)
One space would, I suspect, look better if I were using the same
typeface that /Slate/ uses.
(Don't laugh too hard at me calling it an important issue; the article
is currently /Slate's/ most popular.)
- 10:19 AM, 18 January 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/January2011_3.html#jrm9535>
*Pearlstein Versus Obama: *On 6 January, Washington Post columnist
Steven Pearlstein ranted against Republicans referring to "job-killing"
tax increases, and "job-killing" regulations
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010605889.html>.
There's "job-killing legislation," in particular the health-care
reform law. And "job-killing regulations," especially anything
coming out of the EPA and the IRS.
. . .
There is an unmistakable redbaiting quality to the "job-killing"
rhetoric, a throwback to the McCarthy era. It reflects the sort of
economic fundamentalism better suited to Afghan politics than
American. Rather than contributing to the political dialogue, it is
a substitute for serious discussion. And the fact that it continues
unabated suggests that Republicans are not ready to compromise or to
govern.
Today, Barack Obama joins that Republican redbaiting, with an assault on
"job-killing" regulations
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop>.
Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing
unreasonable burdens on business---burdens that have stifled
innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At
other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to
protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences.
Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which
we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and
transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and
a full-scale Depression.
Over the past two years, the goal of my administration has been to
strike the right balance. And today, I am signing an executive
order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our
government.
This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations
protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic
growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already
on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation
and make our economy less competitive.
Will Pearlstein broaden his attack to include Obama? I don't read
Pearlstein often enough to have an opinion on that question, but I will
be checking him from time to time, just to see.
(Pearlstein might benefit from reading, or perhaps re-reading Mancur
Olson's /The Rise and Delcine of Nations/
<http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-Nations-Stagflation-Rigidities/dp/0300030797/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1295369254&sr=8-2>.)
- 8:53 AM, 18 January 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/January2011_3.html#jrm9534>
*Do Journalists Believe In Astrology? *Some do, as I was reminded by
last Friday's Gang of Four
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/Site_Answers.html#ans8> program.
The KUOW host, Steve Scher, opened the Weekday
<http://www.kuow.org/program.php?current=WK1> program with a brief
discussion of the day's top issue (for him, anyway), the controversy
over the astrological signs
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/18/prweb4977804.DTL>.
I expected the other three, Lynne Varner of the Seattle Times, Knute
Berger of Crosscut, and Eli Sanders of /the Stranger/, to dismiss
astrology as unscientific. Instead, all three implied that they half
believed in it. Sanders summed up their attitudes by saying that "a
certain part of me" believes in astrology. And, judging by what he and
Berger said, you might get more dates in that reactionary city, Seattle,
if you at least pretended to believe that the stars determine our destinies.
Believing in astrology is mostly harmless, but I did expect one of the
four to say what everyone with a scientific outlook knows, that, after
centuries of searching, scientists have found no evidence at all for
astrology. But none did, perhaps because all four believe in it, in part.
Cross posted at Sound Politics <http://www.soundpolitics.com>.
(I'll have much more to say about last Friday's program in a future post.)
- 7:14 AM, 18 January 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/January2011_3.html#jrm9533>
*Clever Chris Christie: *In his Fox News Sunday interview
<http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/gop-stars-chris-christie-and-tim-pawlenty-039fox-news-sunday039?page=3>,
Governor Christie was asked --- as he must have known he would be ---
about his presidential ambitions. He gave the expected answer, that he
was working hard at being governor of New Jersey, and then got in a
clever dig at two potential opponents.
Listen, I think every year you have as a governor in an executive
position in a big state like New Jersey would make you better
prepared to be president. And after one year as governor, I am not
arrogant enough to believe that after one year as governor of New
Jersey and seven years as the United States attorney that I'm ready
to be president of the United States, so I'm not going to run.
Christie is implying that Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are arrogant.
And he does so without mentioning either person's name.
Chris Wallace asked him about Obama in a follow-up question, giving
Christie a chance to add to his criticism.
*WALLACE:* Yes, but you know, and I heard you say it might make
more sense somewhere down the line, 2016, 2020, whatever. But one
of the things that Obama learned and showed us all in 2007, when
it's your moment, you have got to move.
*CHRISTIE:* Listen, that is a decision that he made. And he's
obviously was successful in winning the presidency. My view is I
want to, if I ever would have run for the presidency, if I was ever
to do it, I want to make sure in my heart I feel ready. And I don't
think you run just because political opportunity is there. That's
how we wind up with politicians who aren't ready for their jobs.
Christie is implying that Obama was, in 2007, unready to be president.
Christie isn't the first Obama opponent to imply that Obama is arrogant
and unready to be president, but few have made those criticisms so cleverly.
Christie was lucky (or perhaps very good in his timing) not to be asked
a similar question about Palin. But he had already shown, earlier in
the interview, that he could deflect such questions.
(Oh, and there was an added bit that former Minnesota governor Tim
Pawlenty must have appreciated: Christie said that being governor of a
"big" state prepares you for being president, implying that being
governor of a small state, or even a medium-sized state like Minnesota,
doesn't.)
- 6:19 AM, 18 January 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/January2011_3.html#jrm9532>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
