According to Think Progress, Mitt Romney’s wife Ann, told Fox News, “We can be poor in spirit, and I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing, it can be here today and gone tomorrow.” The couple’s total income last year was $20.9 million dollars (they have a total wealth of about a quarter billion). This is over $57,000 per day. It’s a miracle they’re getting by.
I’m sorry to be once again discussing Lucky’s speech. But I was reading Theatre in Spain, 1490 – 1700 (really good), and I came upon a sentence that talked about the sine qua non of the theater. It means literally “without which not” or more or less “an essential element.”
That means that “qua” means “which” or “as” or “the character of.” Aha!
Lucky’s speech starts:
Now it seems pretty obvious what Beckett meant here: a personal God which has the character of a white beard and the character of being outside the bounds of time.
My only question: if this is so obvious, why have I never read anyone discussing it, even as one possible explanation. It could be that it is just too obvious. Or it could be that academics don’t give the word much thought because they don’t have to. And actors don’t give it much thought because they aren’t pedants.
But I feel better now.
In an article, 2012 or Never, in New York Magazine, the always interesting and often funny Jonathan Chait discusses the long-term (but not long off) trend away from Republican and toward Democratic dominance. This is not exactly breaking news. What’s more, there is a counter argument (which Chait discusses): political parties are not stagnant. But that’s good news. Over the last forty years, the Republican success has not been their own accomplishments; it is rather the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: the most conservative, free market socialists to ever be elected president. We hope that this demographic change will cause the Republican Party to move to the left.
This will not necessarily happen, however. I do not think the our nation really became more conservative along with our government. Instead, the Republican Party has been really good at getting people who don’t agree with them about policy to vote for them anyway, by distracting them. It is What’s the Matter with Kansas, or, more to the point, political magic: vote about millions of dollars going to the poor while I take billions away from you to give to the rich! Nothing up my sleeve—or even in my conscience!
Paul Krugman’s The Conscience of a Liberal makes the argument that the Republican hegemony over the last several decades have been due to racism—especially southern racism. But I don’t recall him quoting any studies (but he may have, I lost my copy of his book). Regardless, Chait lays it out very clearly:
The future may indeed be bright. I am certain that this history is correct. But I fear that it will repeat in ways that only the hateful conservative movement can predict.
I learned a new word today from Atrios: Totebagger. The word (actually “tote-bagger”) is defined by Urban Dictionary as, “A left-winger, an antonym of ‘teabagger,’ from the tote bags offered as premiums for donations to public TV and radio stations.” This definition is, as is typical of Urban Dictionary, useful but inaccurate. A related definition is for the word totebaggery, “Display of middlebrow mediocre taste that is supposed to be sophisticated, i.e., conspicuous consumption of Starbucks coffee or The New York Times.”
I find the two definition interesting because they show how conservatives (and other liberal haters) conflate political beliefs with lifestyle choices. Many books by the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly that purport to be arguments against liberal ideas are really just rants against the lifestyles of the upper-middle class.
I think a better definition would be:
A socially liberal and often economically conservative person who is typical of consumers of NPR, The New York Times, and The Economist Magazine.
Origin: 2005 or earlier. Contraction of “tote” and “bagger.” Refers to the tote bags offered by NPR and PBS for membership pledges. Often assumed to reference “teabagger” but the word is older.
“I admit I still get a bit surprised when I read/hear otherwise very smart very liberal people singing the greatest hits of David Brooks and the Totebaggers.” —Atrios
A lot of people are talking about Andrew Breitbart dying. In general, the script goes something like this: I disagreed with him, but he wasn’t who he appeared to be; the private man was different and I morn his death. The problem with this is that no one would be talking about Breitbart if it weren’t for his public image. I don’t know the private Andrew Breitbart. For all I know, he was a great guy. I can only talk about the public Andrew Breitbart, both because that’s all I know and because that’s the only person anyone reading this will care about. And that Andrew Breitbart was a lie propagating fear monger.
I can imagine what it is like for his family. The man was only 43! It must be shocking and painful for them. It must be a horrible blow to all of his personal acquaintances.
But for the world? Unfortunately, the institutions Breitbart created (Big Government and so on) will go on spreading lies and fear. I’m sure we will continue to suffer along with James O’Keefe for many years to come with the mainstream media ever willing to accept new stunts by this serial-liar. In that way, Breitbart lives on. And that’s bad. But I expect that these ventures of his will lose much of their gloss; they will have less influence. Also, Breitbart won’t be around to go on supposedly liberal news programs to justify his propaganda, as he did last year defending the Sherrod video on ABC News. For these reasons, we can be very glad that he is gone.
Andrew Breitbart didn’t have to die in order to stop having a pernicious effect on our culture. He could even have had a political awakening, like David Brock. But he did die. And I just don’t see the down side for our culture.
Matt Yglesias tweeted: Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.
Paula Poundstone is such a freak. Here she is on one of her many videos that she produces for her site:
Samuel L. Jackson has been on the cover of Ebony Magazine many times. But last week’s cover really annoyed me. This isn’t so much because of this particular cover. It is how often I see men (and women to a lesser extent) on the covers of magazines chomping on a big fat cigar. If it were only that cigars are health nuisances for the smoker and the public, that would be one thing. (And enough of a thing.) But I can’t get past the whole phallic nature of it. “Look what a big dick I have!” they seem to be saying.
My response is, “Not have, are.” Can’t we limit the dicks to Cigar Aficionado Magazine?
This is taken from The Daily Show. Romney said, “[Obama] raised the national debt; I will cut, cap, and balance the budget. He passed Obamacare; I will repeal Obamacare. He lost our triple-A credit rating; I will restore our triple-A credit rating.” Jon Stewart continued, “He killed Osama Bin Laden; I will reanimate him—bring him back to life. He married Michelle Obama; I will divorce Michelle Obama. He told you, ‘Yes we can’; I’m here to pledge to you, ‘No, no we can’t.'” Here is their idea of a Mitt Romney “Nope” poster:
I really like Maria Bamford. She’s brilliant and not enough people know about her. That seems to be the case with the comedians I find most impressive. I like Louis C.K. but what’s the big deal?
Note: comments turned off as spam prevention measure.
Reading slowly has its advantages. In general, I’m a good copy editor. And I know what you’re thinking: if that’s so, why are there so many typos on your website?
There are two issues here. First, there is the cleaning paradox: people never see the spot you cleaned, only the spot you missed. In other words: typos stand out. What’s more, you probably miss five typos for every one you do see. (Be honest: would you have noticed if I had used “everyone” in that last sentence?) Second, I don’t copy edit this site; I read through the article once and if it seems okay, I click the “Add Item” button.
Major Publishers
Recently, I’ve been noticing a lot of errors in books by major publishers. In particular, I have noticed a lot of mix-ups with “then” and “than.”
This is the kind of stuff that separates the good editors from the mediocre. Everyone knows to check their “there/their/they’re” and “two/too/to” and “for/fore.” But they seem to forget about this one. And it drives me crazy!
So let’s get this straight. “Than” is mostly a preposition. It is used to compare objects: he is smarter than I; not, he is smarter then I. “Then” is mostly an adverb. It is used to sequence things: he got the job I wanted, then he got the girl; not, he got the job I wanted, than he got the girl. (I know: it doesn’t feel like an adverb; it modifies got: he then got; it describes how he got the girl: after he got the job. Confused? Good.)
I have problems hearing words with great clarity. This has caused all kinds of problems throughout my life, many of which I deal with to this day. And yet, the words “then” and “than” are very clearly distinguished for me. You do this, theeeeen you do that; you’d rather do this thaaaaan that. I don’t know if that will be helpful to other people. The other obvious suggestion (one I don’t find very helpful in my own life) is just to memorize the difference.
I’d like to see this confusion go away. It really does annoy me more than it ought. But I suspect that if I read all the articles on this site, I would find that I’d made this mistake many times. Feel free to email me any you notice.
This is a nice short video about calenders. I’m posting it, because I’m working on other things that are keeping me from working on articles for this site.
Jonathan Chait notes that the Republican primary is turning out to be a lot like an episode of The Simpsons: