Month: October 2009

“Friend”

Nicholas Tabarrok notices that entertainment industry Los Angelenos abuse the word:

We all know that different part of the country use different words ('soda' vs 'pop') and many industries have their own specific vocabulary.  I'm not sure which one of those two possibilities is at work here.  I'm curious if entertainment workers in New York use the work 'friend' in the same way it's done in LA or if people in LA who are not in the entertainment business (I hear there are a few of such people) use the term as I describe above?  Is it geographic or industry specific?

Best Typo Ever, Ctd

The Dish wasn't planning to run any more of these, but this one is simply too good. A reader writes:

Junior year of High School, we received an assignment for Spanish class in which we had to write about the Person of the Year.  Our teacher, no doubt inspired by Time Magazine, gave us free reign to write about whomever we wanted, no restrictions, no geographical boundaries. It was 1998. Everyone was talking up Bill Clinton as the logical choice for the cover story for beating impeachment, but I thought that Hillary deserved the accolade for her perseverance during such tumultuous personal and political times.

So throughout the assignment, I waxed eloquently why Hillary should be given the mantle of Person of the Year, or in Spanish, "Persona del Año." One problem: throughout the entire piece when I typed this phrase, I forgot the tilda over the n in "Año." While I received an A- for the paper, it had one interesting comment circled in red at the top. "Well done, but since you forgot the tilda in "Año," your paper was not about why Hillary Clinton was "Person of the Year" but rather why she was "Anus of the Year." Please remember, tildas matter."

A reader notes:

Actually, the teacher was wrong. Persona del Ano wouldn't mean "Anus of the Year." It would mean "Person of the Anus." "Ano del Año" would be "Anus of the Year."

Far too much time on my hands.

What would the Dish do without readers with time on their hands?

Would McCain Have Been Any Worse?

A reader writes:

As a gay professional, I caucused for Obama in Iowa because I thought he not only understood and cared about the LGBT community, but also because he would not suffer from the "Clinton caution" malaise on gay issues. I voted for Obama in the general election because the Palin wing of the Republican party continued to rile up the base by

demonizing gays.  Now, I have to ask myself, how is Obama any better

than John McCain? 

To paraphrase the great Pragmatist, William James, a difference, to be a difference, must make a difference.  Frankly, I can't see any difference in how gay rights issues would have been handled had McCain been elected.  McCain is no gay rights champion, but he has never been a cultural warrior, either.  I suspect McCain would have, at worst, treated gay issues with benign neglect.  Frankly, McCain might have been persuaded by his daughter to support the repeal of DADT (or at least to enter an order suspending it due to personnel needs for the wars), and he would have had the credentials to get it done.  Also, McCain might have been reachable about repealing DOMA as a states' rights matter.  But even assuming McCain flatly refused to address gay rights issues at all, how is Obama any different?  If my President is going to ignore gay rights issues, it doesn't much matter to me if he does it with a snarl or a smile.

Sadly, McCain proved in the campaign that he was a tool of the Christianist right and a slave to Rovianism. He had a chance to pick another course but chose not to. I think he would have done by now what Obama has done, which is, strictly speaking, next to nothing.