Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 12:41 AM Oct 2012

The New Yorker's Endorsement

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/29/121029taco_talk_editors

Comment
The Choice
by The Editors October 29, 2012

............

The choice is clear. The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work.

The reëlection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves. ?

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The New Yorker's Endorsement (Original Post) Coyotl Oct 2012 OP
Thanks!! Great stuff Thekaspervote Oct 2012 #1
fantastic!!!!! n/t oldhippydude Oct 2012 #2
Only The New Yorker . . . BrainGlutton23 Oct 2012 #3
Only a leftie would know what it is called. Welcome to DU. Coyotl Oct 2012 #4
Since it isn't a German word, that's not an umlaut alcibiades_mystery Oct 2012 #5
Don't both names refer to the same diacritical mark? Coyotl Oct 2012 #6
The mark is the same, but the function is not alcibiades_mystery Oct 2012 #7
And a true New Yorker reader would call it a "dieresis"... Silent3 Oct 2012 #8
 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
5. Since it isn't a German word, that's not an umlaut
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 07:55 AM
Oct 2012

It's actually a diaresis or diaresis mark. The diaresis only indicates that the second vowel in a vowel pairing marks the beginning of a new syllable, so it is different from an umlaut in that respect as well.

Just sayin', yo.

Cheers!

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
6. Don't both names refer to the same diacritical mark?
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:29 AM
Oct 2012

The two options are just names from different languages, not?

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
7. The mark is the same, but the function is not
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:31 AM
Oct 2012

The use of a diaresis is actually quite different than the use of an umlaut. Indeed, here's the difference explained by the New Yorker itself!

Ha!

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/04/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis.html

Silent3

(15,293 posts)
8. And a true New Yorker reader would call it a "dieresis"...
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 09:12 AM
Oct 2012

...not an "umlaut" when the mark is used to indicate a syllabic break.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The New Yorker's Endorsem...