« Fitzmas Catblogging | Main | NToddcast: Pluck The Vibrating Strings »
Friday, October 28, 2005
Worth It At 100 Times The Price!
Lou Dobbs' QuickVote on CNN:
Duh. Let's compare and contrast:
- The first 15 months of Fitzgerald's national-security related probe of Bush admin: $723,000.
- Total Independent Counsel probes of Clinton admin: $79,300,000.
- Ken Starr's "failed land deal and blowjob" probe from 1994-1998: $39,200,000.
Oh yeah, baby, it's worth it. And it appears to be the gift that will keep on giving: it ain't over until the fat man squeals...
ntodd
October 28, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d8345ddfc353ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Worth It At 100 Times The Price!:
Comments
Yeah, where'd they get that "millions" business?? sheesh.
Posted by: rieman | Oct 28, 2005 10:48:56 PM
Fine - it's worth it - now, can someone please explain how Libby is the first time in 130 years that a sitting White House official has been indicted?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9825296/
Posted by: Charlie | Oct 28, 2005 10:53:58 PM
Is Lou Dobbs still with CNN? I thought they parted company years ago. But I don't watch much cable TV; I have to visit a neighbor to do so.
BTW, NTodd, the possessive of "Dobbs" is "Dobbs's" ... or at least that's Steve Bates's opinion, based on the venerable Strunk and White. The only person who gets a pass on this rule in more recent stylebooks is Jesus... Christians may still pray "in Jesus' name." Other than that, it's s-apostrophe-s.
Posted by: Steve Bates | Oct 28, 2005 11:00:42 PM
Charlie, during Libby's perp walk, he was not a sitting White House official; he was standing on crutches, a sympathy ploy if ever I've seen one.
But seriously, if I'm not mistaken, you mean cabinet-level official... plenty of Reagan administration officials were indicted. Getting indicted is a Republican tradition, much like snorting cocaine, getting drunk and driving the family car into a ditch, failing in one business after another...
Posted by: Steve Bates | Oct 28, 2005 11:07:17 PM
Unlike Espy and Cisneros?!
Posted by: Charlie | Oct 28, 2005 11:15:38 PM
Are you sure, Steve? I was taught to write the Bates' house not the Bates's house. No double esses needed.
Posted by: ellroon | Oct 29, 2005 1:28:54 AM
ellroon, I have two sources, one old, one new (actually I have a lot more than two, but these will have to suffice):
Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, 1959 (surely you have run across this classic at some point): Chapter I, page 1, rule 1: Form the posessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Strunk's examples:
* Charles's friend
* Burns's poems
* the witch's malice.
Fowler and Aaron, The Little, Brown Handbook, 1992 (the classic joke is that it is neither little, nor brown, nor really a handbook), rule 23a part 2, page 420-421: Add -'s to form the possessive case of singular words ending in -s.
The LBH's examples:
* Henry James's novels reward the patient reader.
* Jane Gross's promotion was expected.
* Doris's book sells well.
* Los Angeles's weather is mostly warm.
* The business's customers filed suit.
(Continuing from LBH...)
"Exception: We typically do not pronounce the possessive -s of a few singular nouns ending in an s or z sound, especially names with more than one s sound, names that sound like plurals (Rivers, Bridges), and other nouns when they are followed by a word beginning in s. In these cases, many writers add only the apostrophe to indicate possession."
The handbook goes on with examples of the exceptions, but I'm afraid I'm tired of typing. That's my appeal to authority for the moment. If you want me to look it up in the Chicago Manual of Style, which I believe contains the Jesus exception, you'll have to wait.
I was taught the same thing you were, ellroon, and as I began editing other people's work, and started reading stylebooks, I came to realize that the rule we were both taught is incorrect. Damn schoolteachers anyway! :)
Posted by: Steve Bates | Oct 29, 2005 2:24:02 AM
Charlie, what about all those quotes of famous Republicans? Do those mean nothing to you? Don't you want to defend your fellow hypocri... uh, I mean, conservatives in their sententious preachments about the sanctity of the law?
Posted by: Steve Bates | Oct 29, 2005 2:37:48 AM
ellroon - Oops, make that "possessive." If I could type, or if web browsers had spell checkers, I'd be dangerous.
Posted by: Steve Bates | Oct 29, 2005 2:40:57 AM
Chuckles - I believe that the other folks were indicted after they resigned or were fired or the investigations otherwise proceeded until after they were in their position. Had Bush been serious about his statement (I won't call it a promise) that anybody involved with the leak would be out of his administration, this interesting little stat would be moot.
Steve - I always learned just the apostrophe after 's'. Elements of Style is, dare I say...a bit dated?
Posted by: NTodd | Oct 29, 2005 7:42:21 AM
the record should also include how many FBI agents were pulled off their jobs in order to investigate clinton. wasn't it like a couple of hundred agents?
it's been a while since i've read the hunting of the president.
Posted by: jello | Oct 29, 2005 8:07:27 AM
That possessive rule cited by Steve Bates is not really used much. Ask a working editor (as I did when I was chided about this on a blog a few months ago--thanks Spine!) and they'll tell you it depends on how you pronounce the possessive form. Do you hear the second "s" when pronounce "Dobbs's?" If so, then type the second "s" if not, "Dobbs'" is fine. My impression is that this rule is not unlike the "never end a sentence in a preposition" foolishness--a rule to which it is often pretty silly to adhere.
/2c.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Oct 29, 2005 11:28:45 AM
Okay, I just happened to be talking to my mom on the phone (another working editor) and she clarified this point to me:
According to the AP style (a more journalistic style), for proper nouns (like "Dobbs") it's always s-apostrophe--no second "s." In Chicago style (a more literary style), it's always s-apostrophe-s. She hastens to point out that neither case is wrong, it's just a matter of which style you use and the important thing is to be consistant. The possessive form of common plural nouns (e.g., "schools") is ALWAYS s-apostrophe (no second "s").
There. I feel better now.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Oct 29, 2005 11:52:07 AM
I rely on the tried-and-true Warriner's English Grammar and Composition texts which have served me well since grade school, and they're in the second-syllable camp that Bill cited above.
My grammatical pet-peeve is the confusion of "your-you're" and "there-their-they're." When I see someone misuse those in a comment, I really have to hold my tongue and not tell them to go back to Grade 5 and do their homework before venturing into the grown-up world of public discourse.
Posted by: Mustang Bobby | Oct 29, 2005 12:13:37 PM
Akchoally, if we spelt things lik they sownd, it wood be alot ezer.
So their!
Posted by: ellroon | Oct 29, 2005 2:46:46 PM
"Its" and "it's" misuse is one of my biggest pet peeves.
Posted by: NTodd's Pa | Oct 29, 2005 3:15:14 PM
Oh, yeah, I forgot about those, NTodd's Pa. That was drilled into me at MVCDS; one of the things I'm grateful to them for.
Posted by: Mustang Bobby | Oct 29, 2005 3:47:26 PM
"Try and" rather than "try to."
And your grammar wears Army boots! (Sorry.)
Posted by: Linkmeister | Oct 29, 2005 4:25:35 PM
One of those pant legs is either (shorter) or (longer) than the other.
Posted by: Bling Crosby | Oct 29, 2005 5:48:42 PM
And I get my current grammar info from scrutinizing Newsweek, where it seems to depend on the writer which way the s'/s's issue blows. Yes, they do also now begin sentences with 'and' and 'because'. Clarity of the writing seems to be the standard, in any case.
Posted by: NTodd's Pa's wife | Oct 29, 2005 8:13:23 PM
The possessive form of common plural nouns (e.g., "schools") is ALWAYS s-apostrophe (no second "s"). - Bill Simmon
Bill, that was never in dispute here. I presume everyone agrees with that rule. (I'm glad you feel better now. :))
My sources, from Strunk to Chicago to LBH to St. Martin's to... well, you get the idea, are either used in the academic world or issued by major book or journal publishing houses. They are the appropriate sources for the small amount of editing I've done, a few academic papers, a book chapter and two technical manuals. AP style would be completely inappropriate in those contexts; journalistic style appropriately simplifies. I don't own an AP stylebook.
Regarding pronunciation, the -s after the apostrophe, or lack of it, may depend on syllables and accent patterns in the name or word for which the possessive is formed. In the case of Dobbs or Bates, both of which have one syllable, if you don't at least pronounce s-apostrophe-s, you cannot distinguish the pronounced name from its possessive. The same is true of Jesus, but "Jesus's" is pretty awkward to say if you pronounce every letter, and there's a traditional exception, as noted in a couple of style manuals. The possessive of my family's last name has always been pronounced in two syllables; i.e., the s-apostrophe-s is audible. Of course that makes it aurally indistinguishable from the plural... you can't win! "Dobbs" is enough like "Bates" that I make the reasonable assumption that the families follow the same pronunciation pattern.
For the record, I share everyone's grammatical pet peeves listed above.
Honestly, I find this stuff fun. Apparently so do most of the rest of you. What does that say about blog addicts like us?
-----
Aside: TypePad refused at first to post this comment, responding, "TypePad is currently unavailable for maintenance." OK, if it's unavailable for maintenance, why isn't it available for normal use?
Posted by: Steve Bates | Oct 30, 2005 7:55:11 AM
Chicago 15 (2003) says: "The possessive of a singular noun is formed by adding 's {driver's seat} {engineer's opinion}. The possessive of a plural noun that ends in s or es is formed by adding an apostrophe {parents' house} {foxes' den}." (5.25, p. 152)
They continue: "The possessive of a title or name is formed by adding 's ...This is so even when the word ends in a sibiliant..., unless the word itself is formed from a plural ...But if a word ends in a sibilant, it is acceptable (especially in journalism) to use a final apostrophe without the additional s ..." (5.26, p. 152)
Posted by: Michael | Oct 30, 2005 9:53:04 AM
NTodd's Book Of Blogging Style sez: "Do whatever the hell you want. Most likely, people will get it. Otherwise, you'll hear about it in comments."
Posted by: NTodd | Oct 30, 2005 10:14:25 AM
Steve, et al.
Don't you think the AP style is a more appropriate choice for blogs that cover a lot of journalistic subjects (like Dohiyi Mir)? I guess that's why I chimed in. I would have typed the possessive the same way NTodd did and when you corrected him in your first comment I was all "no, that's right!" Most of the professional writing I've done (I'm not an editor, but I'm surrounded by them in my life) has been in the AP style (magazines and newspapers) and extending the style to blogs seems appropriate.
I also like NTodd's Book of Blogging Style.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Oct 30, 2005 4:59:39 PM
Buy me stuff off my 
