Page 12 of The New York Times Everyday Reader’s Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, and Mispronounced Words: Revised Edition was even worse than page 11. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise. Page 11 had the ante- words; page 12 thus had the anti- words. But I picked a word that came in between: anthropophagi.
Not Really Anthropophagi
Before we get to the word, I suppose I should point out that the word should not be “anthropophagi.” It should be “anthropophaguses.” This business has got to stop! We take English language words that are based on Greek words and create plurals based on Latin grammar?! What’s with that?! The Greek word isn’t “anthropophagus” anyway; it is “ανθρωποφάγος”! And where Latin fits in, I can’t say.
An unrelated issue: “antihero” is on the same page. The book claims that such a character lacks all heroic attributes and noble qualities. That was doubtless how the word was originally used. But by the time this dictionary came out, it was not used in that way at all.
Anyway, on to anthropophagi:
1. cannibals.
Date: mid 16th century.
Origin: Greek, άνθρωπος (man) and φάγος (eat).
Example:
It was my hint to speak, such was the process;
And of the Cannibals that each other eat,
The anthropophagi and men whose heads
Do grow beneath their shoulders.
—William Shakespeare (Othello)
Note that anthropophagus is normally used for folklore cannibals, as in the image above.
Page 11 of 
I don’t want to talk about libertarians, but I was running errands and happened upon this “debate” between Anthony Furey and Sam Seder that was on Majority Report about two years ago. It wasn’t really a debate. Seder mostly lets libertarians talk and tries to get them to be clear about what they think. So the vast majority of the time was spent with Anthony Furey doing the libertarian two-step. This is when they talk theory when the issue is practical, and practical when the issue is theory.
Onward to page ten of 
So last night was the NBC‘s 
I am going to follow up on my last post about ontology, 
Page nine of 
David Brooks has a new reason to be disappointed in Obamacare. The problem is not so much that the new law has done bad things — he concedes that it has insured 20 million people — but that it was sold on a false basis. It is mostly helping poor people obtain insurance, he observes sadly, rather than overturning the entire system. “[T]his is not bad. But we’d have had a very different debate if we knew the law was going to be a discrete government effort to subsidize health care for more poor people,” writes Brooks in his column today. “For one thing, Democrats would have probably paid a much smaller political price if their effort wasn’t billed as an extravagant government grab to take over the nation’s health care system.” This is a great point. Why, exactly, did the Democrats decide to advertise their plan as an extravagant government grab to take over the nation’s health-care system? That turns out to have been a really poor choice!
I’ve noticed that most people don’t know what an editor does. They almost always think that an editor is a copy editor. That means that they think what editors do is work their way through a writer’s text and replace “than” with “then” when the need occurs. And this is an important job that is done less and less. Who has time for copy editing when you have to get an article out on the results of National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius within five minutes of its release? It’s a now, now, now world — and I’m just trailing behind it.
Page eight of 
