Published on February 18, 2008
in words.
A lot of people have problems with the word moist. I’m not a fan, although it doesn’t elicit nausea like the word sofa does. (Don’t ask me why.)
But moistest—that’s a pretty beastly word, one that should never be used to describe food, particularly if the objective is entice someone to eat it.
What’s wrong with moist? For one thing, it sounds like some other unfortunate words: soil (as in, “I soiled my slacks”), ointment, boil (I’m thinking skin ailment), toil, oink, and roil (“This discussion has my stomach roiling”) just to name a few.
The problem is lack of alternatives. Damp leaves a lot to be desired and it isn’t always as accurate as moist, and there’s issue of the negative connotations.
Here are some others, none of which is much better, particularly when used to describe cake:
Humid is weird. Soggy is gross. Clammy is just silly.
In a perfect world we’d have gender-neutral pronoun and a positive word to describe a cake that is not dry.
Maybe it’s a superficial measure of a candidate, but it seems that Obama’s supporters are much more inspired and creative than are Clinton’s and McCain’s.
Click the image above to learn about the other nice things Obama has done for you lately.
Published on February 14, 2008
in words.
I love it when really smart people take down other smart people for acting like snobs.
Here’s Language Log’s Geoffrey Pullum embracing adverbs and shunning their snooty detractors:
A beautiful Valentine’s Day to all our readers. For my philosopher partner I managed to find a card which had the words passionately, devotedly, fervently, completely, utterly, and absolutely on the front (with the first person singular pronoun as subject and adore you as the predicate). It seemed ideal. When a grammarian loves you, you should expect adverbs. Lots and lots of adverbs.Adverbs do have enemies; Stephen King has said (in his On Writing) that “the road to hell is paved with adverbs”, and his hostility to them follows in a long tradition. A long tradition of pontificating fools who should shut up and write rather than telling us how (nearly all of them unwittingly use adverbs in the very paragraphs in which they condemn them; on this, see chapter 2 of Ben Yagoda’s lovely little book If You Catch An Adjective, Kill It, published in 2006). There were adverbs, daffodils, morning tea, and breakfast in bed this morning. And a kiss, of course. When a grammarian kisses you, you stay kissed.
I admire Stephen King and can even understand (though not agree with) his distaste for adverbs, but I can never forgive him for his mean-spirited dig at, Nicholson Baker, one of my favorite writers, who is twice the writer that Stephen—Pontificating Fool—King is.
Published on February 8, 2008
in politics.
From Mathew Yglesias:
The Senate’s green stimulus package was blocked last night by a minority of Senators. Not voting was John McCain, erstwhile maverick, erstwhile environmentalist, and the sort of guy inclined to say things like “we’ve got to give them some stimulus” didn’t bother to show up.
Other presidential candidates showed up — Obama was there, Clinton was there. Other Arizonians showed up — Jon Kyl was there. Other contrarians showed up — Joe Lieberman was there. Indeed, ninety-nine senators thought it was worth taking the time out of their busy schedules to show up and vote on an important piece of legislation. But not John McCain. He’s too mavericky for that.
I’m sure his absence had nothing to do with the fact that he’s been frantically trying to suck up to the CPAC crowd. Nothing at all.
Hat tip: Con Queso
[UPDATE]
Add phony to the list of McCain modifiers. This also from Mathew Yglesias, who’s really hammering our favorite maverick lately:
After a generally conservative career, the John McCain who emerged in the 107th Senate really was a moderate Republican. According to the Poole-Rosenthal “optimal classification” algorithm, only Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins were less conservative among members of the GOP caucuses. But by the 108th Senate he’d decided not to run for Vice President on John Kerry’s ticket, George W. Bush had been re-elected, and McCain decided to shift back far right en route to the nomination. Suddenly only Don Nickles, Jeff Sessions, and Jon Kyl were more conservative than McCain. And in the 109th Senate, only Kyl has been more conservative.
Time to reprise the windsurfing commercial (this time with McCain’s jowled mug Photoshopped in).
Published on February 6, 2008
in politics.
I’m curious to know how things would be if the Democratic primary had the same winner-takes-all approach to awarding delegates as the GOP primary.
Obama has won more states but they have fewer delegates than the states that went for Clinton.
Any one with some math skills (not me, I’m afraid) want to take a stab? My own casual glance at the delegate totals for each state leads me to suspect that Clinton would be farther ahead of Obama than she is.
Published on February 4, 2008
in politics.
From my point of view, Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s health plans have more similarities than differences, but there is one fundamental point of departure between the two proposals: Hillary would impose an individual mandate, requiring everyone to buy health insurance. Obama would not.
He argues that his plan is more pragmatic on a political level. Any proposal that includes an individual mandate, he believes, simply won’t get enough support to actually get through congress and to his desk.
But Obama also believes that his plan will result in de facto universal coverage: Since everyone really wants insurance, they’ll rush to buy it if it’s affordable.
Paul Krugman disagrees:
“An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else,” Krugman said in a New York Times column recently.
Despite my oft-neglected inner libertarian telling me not to force people to do the right thing, I’m tempted to agree with Krugman. A lot of people won’t get coverage, even if it’s inexpensive. That’s clear even now, as many middle class people who can afford coverage have opted out of the system. Still, Obama has a point about the slim likelihood of a mandate making it through our dumb congress. I’m at a loss.
Observation: It seems that Hillary’s plan is more hopeful, doesn’t it? Isn’t Obama supposed to be the hopeful, “yes, we can” candidate? I think he is, but this issue appears to be an exception. Or is it? I suppose that Obama is hopeful that people will opt to get coverage. Clinton is hopeful that congress can do the right thing and pass health care reform that includes a mandate.
Cynical, defeatist thought: They’re both delusional.
The Freakonomics blog is running a contest to come up with a six-word slogan for, as Borat would say, the U.S. and A.
Here are a few submissions that stood out:
Still Using Fahrenheit, Feet, and Gallons.
Hubris: it’s not just for Greeks!
Intelligently designed to constantly evolve.
When in doubt, whip it out!
I Can’t Believe It’s Not Democracy.
IN UR KOUNTRY, STEALIN UR OILZ
Link