The first thing that any sensible and sufficiently computer-savvy person does after installing Microsoft Word is turn off that idiotic feature whereby any time you type a numeral followed by "th", the "th" is converted to a superscript. (You can find this "feature" under Insert > AutoText > AutoFormat.)

Whose idea was this? Is there anyone in the world, outside of Microsoft, who thinks it looks better that way? Even if you could find someone who thinks the superscript suffix is a legitimate alternate style, surely no one would say that the normal way is so wrong that it should automatically be corrected by default. It's as if someone had decided that "stupid" should be spelled "stoopid" and programmed to spell-checker to always make the change.

The other day I happened to be reading Slate, which, like Salon and no other I'm aware of, calls itself an online magazine, as opposed to a website, blog, or online version of a magazine that exists in print as well. I was reading a story by William Saletan about Richard Clarke's recent book, and there it was -- the date for that celebrated first meeting on terrorism which didn't occur until one week before the attack was written as "Sept. 4^th", with a tiny little "th" like that. Further down in the story there is also a "Jan. 25^th". (On Slate, it didn't also foul up the line-spacing, as it does here.)

Could it be? Is Slate so devoted to the superscript "th" that they've implemented HTML code for it? What is especially strange is not just how the "th" appears there, but that it even appears at all. A normal person would just write "Jan. 25" and leave out the "th" altogether. It's as if someone is purposefully miswriting dates just to show off the superscript. And it gets worse. Yet another story refers to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as the "9^th Circuit". It appears that way numerous times throughout the text, and in a subhead, too! Anywhere else, the word "ninth" would be spelled out, but because there's a "th" waiting to be superscribed, they've got to use a numeral here.

Then I notice that the domain name is "slate.msn.com", and there's that MSN butterfly in the banner as well. Slate is owned by Microsoft, I realize. Hence the perverse style.

2:55:55 AM  [permalink]  comment []  

Only hours after asking (in the second caucus report -- hours after writing it, but days before I actually posted it) "when was the last time you heard from Susan Molinari?", lo and behold, I stumble across her name for the first time in years.

It was in one of those spread-the-word political letters which liberals like to forward to one another. I found it via a link on Pete's blog RaptorMagic, but it has appeared on several others. For those who don't care to follow the links, it is easily summarized: Under the a headline of "defenders of the sanctity of marriage" there follows a list of several prominent Republicans, each with a note on how many times he or she has been divorced. The punch line ("exformation" again!) is "which of your marriages are you defending?"

At the bottom of this list is former Rep Susan Molinari, who has been divorced once. I was surprised to see her included. If Ms Molinari has been famous for anything, it has been for being a socially liberal Republican. Throughout the 1990s, whenever any news show had a panel about abortion, she was always the token pro-choice Republican. At the 2000 Republican convention she was made a keynote speaker because no one could better represent Republicans' inclusive, "big-tent" attitude and embrace of "compassionate conservatism" than an articulate and outspoken pro-choice Republican. (And immediately after the election she was banished to political oblivion for the exact same reason.)

With that in mind, I found it shocking that she would join right-wingers like Bob Barr and Rush Limbaugh in supporting President Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. You can probably see where this is leading. It turns that what is really going on here is something far less shocking: the guy who made the list didn't check his facts. Ms Molinari is not for the amendment at all. To the contrary, she is a member of the Republican Unity Coalition, a group of Republicans formed precisely to oppose that sort of thing.

The RUC's mission is not to favor gay marriage either. Rather, they don't want the Republican Party to be concerned with homosexuality at all; they want it to be a "non-issue". Since the proposed amendment is clearly intended to make a political issue out of it, they oppose it:

I haven't seen anything of the "defenders of the sanctity of marriage" list since Pete's link last week, but if it's like most of those things, it will make the rounds of email forwards and we're all likely to see it again some day. When that day comes, assuming that your interest is to elevate the political discourse, as opposed to just bashing Republicans with any available club, use the opportunity to inform the person who sent it to you that there are many Republicans with a more enlightened view of the constitution and that Susan Molinari is among them.

Other prominent Republicans in the Republican Unity Coalition: Gerald Ford, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Mary Matalin, John Warner, David Rockefeller, Richard Riordan, and Jim Kolbe. Honorary chairman of the group is Alan K Simpson, the former senator from Wyoming, a conservative who was always ready to speak his mind (a rare combination nowadays). The paragraph quoted above comes from the Coalition's official statement. Simpson's private statement is more entertaining:

2:24:01 AM  [permalink]  comment []  

I can't remember if avoiding short items in Benzene was a deliberate decision or if it just turned out that way. If it was an intentional policy, I can't think of any good reason for it now, so I'll have a few short ones tonight.

Every city I've ever lived in has a free weekly newspaper filled mostly with calendars and listings for concerts, movies, restaurants, and pretty much anywhere else anyone might go on a date. (To my dismay, I've discovered that being in a committed relationship means you have to date more, not less....) Along with this are classified ads which seem to be dominated by romantic personals and editorial content which is more liberal than what you'll find in any of the daily papers. Is this a blue-state phenomenon, or is it nationwide?

The weekly here in Seattle is called, um, Seattle Weekly. Anticipating the start of baseball season, this week's Weekly has a cover story about the Seattle Mariners. Or at least the cover leads you to believe it's about the Mariners, but it isn't until about halfway through the story that the M's get much discussion. Before that is a lengthy discussion of the sabermetrics revolution in baseball, with lots of talk about Bill James, Moneyball, and that sort of thing.

When the author finally gets around to considering what this has to do with the Mariners, he draws two conclusions, the second following logically from the first: (1) The Mariners organization is thoroughly and unabashedly "old school" in its approach to the game and the business. (2) The Mariners are going to suck.

Some writers make predictions for all the divisions. I'm only interested in the AL West. After all the trades and developments during spring training, I see no reason to change what I said last fall (in TAP, I think it was): The Oakland A's peaked two years ago, and this year they will decline a little bit more, but they'll win the division again anyway, because the other teams have declined along with them. The days when the AL West was baseball's strongest division are over.

The one thing wrong with the Weekly article was the implication that the Seattle-Oakland rivalry is still relevant. Oakland's rival this year (and next) will be the Anaheim Angels. The Mariners will be lucky to finish at .500.

Related items:
Benzene's review of Moneyball

2:07:31 AM  [permalink]  comment []