Deficit
Never mind that the Legislature refused to even touch its Rainy Day Fund during a budget cycle with a monsoon-sized $27 billion deficit [read gap between projected spending and projected income]. (Patricia Kilday Hart, "Straus learns risks of trying to appease extremists," Houston Chronicle, May 30, 2012)
Ms. Kilday Hart, one of the cleverest of the Clever Ones, needs to . . .
. . . look up the word deficit. When speaking of a budget, it's "an excess of expenditure over revenue." In plainer English, it's spending more than you take in. It's something that has happened, not something that might happen if measures are not taken.
Texas has not since the dark days of the Depression spent more money than it has taken in, and certainly not $27 billion in this or any other budget cycle. What she meant to say is that in the last session projected state revenues were $27 billion shy of the government's wish list. We had a planning problem, not a spending problem. I'm not aware of a good word for that kind of gap between budgetary hope and reality, but it's certainly not deficit. Perhaps you can suggest a one-word substitute.
There's another layer of humor, of course, in hearing a liberal complain about a deficit. Liberals love to spend more than they take in, which is to say they love deficits. Our president has dedicated no small amount of energy to the fundamental transformation of America into a deadbeat nation.
Finally, don't write me about Ms. Kilday Hart's split infinitive. I don't care. The split-infinitive was is over. The barbarians won. Let's get on with life.
Facts, Getting Them Right
On the Democratic side, Obama received nearly 90 percent of the vote against obscure opponents Bob Ely, Darcy G. Richardson and John Wolfe -- a major rebound from recent primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia [read Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia], where the incumbent president [read the president] lost as much as [read more than] 40 percent of the vote [read his party's vote] to largely unknown candidates [read and "uncommitted"], including one [read one candidate] who was imprisoned in Texas at the time of the West Virginia primary [delete of the West Virginia primary]. (Richard S. Dunham and Emily Wilkins, "Texas vote puts Romney over the top," Houston Chronicle, May 30, 2012)
As much as 40 percent means up to 40 percent. It signals that the highest vote against President Obama was 40 percent in at least one state and less than 40 percent in one or more other states. In fact, Democrats voted more than 40 percent against the president in all three states.
The Chronicle's list of states with strong anti-Obama primary votes omitted Oklahoma, where on March 6 four challengers combined to take 43 percent.
The anti-Obama vote in Kentucky was for "uncommitted," not another candidate, obscure or not.
Most other changes are to sharpen the writing. President says the same thing as incumbent president. At the time of the West Virginia primary is true, but adds no useful information in the context of a one-paragraph drive-by report on Texas Democratic primary results.
Finally, rebound is not quite the right word. When Jurisdiction A votes one way, then later votes a different way, that's a potential rebound. When Jurisdication A votes one way and Jurisdiction B votes a different way, that's just a difference.
I look forward to the follow-up story that explains two things: Why did Mr. Obama lose 12 percent of Texas Democrats' votes to a bunch of nobodies? And why were Texas Democrats kinder to the president that Democrats in Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas?
Less, Fewer
The Republican primary has drawn no less [read fewer] than nine candidates for the open Senate seat . . . . (Editorial, "Who should fill Hutchison's boots?" Houston Chronicle, May 16, 2012)
"Use fewer, not less, with nubers of individual items or people. Less than £200, less tan 700 tonnes of oil, less than a third, because these are measured quantities or proportions, not individual items. (_____, Style Guide, Economist, 2010)
Use fewer for people or things that can be counted one by one: Fewer than 100 taxidermists attended. . . . Use less with a number that describes a quantity considered as less than a single bulk amount: The police recovered less than $1,500; It happened less than five years ago; The recipe calls for less than two cups of sugar. (Allan M. Siegal and William G. Connolly, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (Three Rivers Press 1999).
Metaphor Mixology
Speaking about "I'll Have Another," winner of the Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes:
. . . with two legs of the Triple Crown in hand . . . . (J.P. Pritchard, KROI-FM (92.1), May 21, 2012).
Almost as good as new faces on city council taking their seats.
Random Act of Journalism
Are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney so different after all? Despite the media's portrayal of Romany as a uniquely craven politician, the recent controversy over Obama's views on gay marriage highlights the ways . . . both candidates -- like nearly all politicians -- have adjusted their positions over their careers for political reasons. (Brendan Nyhan, "Obama 'evolves,' Romney 'flip-flops,'" Swing States Project, Columbia Journalism Review, May 8, 2012)
Mr. Nyhan points out that Mr. Obama's support for gay marriage is called "evolution." "By contast, the press has treated the changing positions of Romney . . . far more harshly."
Why have Obama and Romney's "evolutions" been treated so differently?
This question is a slow pitch over the middle of the plate. A blogger at breitbart.com obligingly knocked it out of the park: "Because the media wants [read want] Obama to win and Romney to lose."
Unintended humor
Under President Obama: Julia decides to have a child. . . . (Campaign Ad, "The Life of Julia," Obama-Biden Campaign, May 3, 2012)
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.