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.
There is one great difference between my versions and Manjoo's; I am using a typeface with serifs, 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.)
Farhood Manjoo is a fierce (I almost said rabid) one spacer.
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, 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]
Pearlstein Versus Obama: On 6 January, Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein ranted against Republicans referring to "job-killing" tax increases, and "job-killing" regulations.
(Pearlstein might benefit from reading, or perhaps re-reading Mancur Olson's The Rise and Delcine of Nations.)
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.Today, Barack Obama joins that Republican redbaiting, with an assault on "job-killing" regulations.
. . .
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.
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.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.
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.
(Pearlstein might benefit from reading, or perhaps re-reading Mancur Olson's The Rise and Delcine of Nations.)
- 8:53 AM, 18 January 2011 [link]
Do Journalists Believe In Astrology? Some do, as I was reminded by last Friday's Gang of Four program.
The KUOW host, Steve Scher, opened the Weekday program with a brief discussion of the day's top issue (for him, anyway), the controversy over the astrological signs. 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.
(I'll have much more to say about last Friday's program in a future post.)- 7:14 AM, 18 January 2011 [link]
Clever Chris Christie: In his Fox News Sunday interview, 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.
Chris Wallace asked him about Obama in a follow-up question, giving Christie a chance to add to his criticism.
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.)
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 is implying that Obama was, in 2007, unready to be president.
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 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]
No comments:
Post a Comment