*Like*

As an aside, a friend of mine started "The Oxford Comma" Facebook page a few years back which now has over 20,000 fans: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Oxford-Comma/48254769340?ref=ts&sk=wall

@CW

Obama added a few good ones over the weekend as well. "Balanced approach" is ideal. To back this up he said "nothing can be off-limits".

This is perfect because Republicans have a knack for unreasonableness.

The only framing I disliked was his use of the word "maximalist". When you enter a negotiation wanting 100% of what you want, unwilling to compromise, you're not maximalist. You're stone headed.

-David

The only putative reason I'm aware of for non-use of the serial comma is the alleged possibility of ambiguity due to apposition within a list. But when there are items that themselves contain commas, in what would normally be a comma-separated list, then the list must be separated instead by semicolons -- regardless of whether the serial comma is used, and regardless of whether the commas within the items are used for apposition or for some other purpose. Removing the serial comma is of no help in removing this supposed ambiguity: without the semicolon rule, every list longer than three items would be parsible as a mixture of list and apposition. Longer lists would be parsible, in ever-increasing numbers of ways, as lists of appositions.

There has to be a hierarchy of punctuation, when multiple uses have to be distinguished. The hierarchy can trivially be extended from two items (no punctuation, comma) to three (no punctuation, comma, and semicolon) by adding the semicolon at the top. It cannot plausibly be extended by adding a level of punctuation below none. On the other hand, grouping with paired delimiters such as parentheses (nested if necessary) would also solve things nicely.

If they were to be consistent, those who oppose the serial comma would have to also forbid lists longer than three entries.

This may be the last chance until 2013 for anything even remotely resembling a sane tax policy. Cross your fingers...

Liz [2] -

Heh. Yeah, Geithner may surprise everyone if he comes out strongly for the "who cares if Congress raises the debt ceiling, because by the 14th Amendment, it simply doesn't matter one way or the other" stance. Now that would be a battle royale....

OsborneInk -

Oooo! I like that... "Cessna conservatives"... or maybe "Gulfstream conservatives" although that doesn't have the same alliteration...

On point 5, yeah, what's surprising is they're being so naked about it...

On point 7 I would have to agree!

-CW

On point 5: the town hall zombies are fixated on Obama, so the scary part is that the GOP is listening to its base.

On point 7: if this president is forced to make Congress that irrelevant, can we all agree it's the most broken of the branches?

...Geithner did something right!?

If he should start to call out the nonsense emanating from the Republican cult of economic failure on this then I would suggest we all just start running for the hills, post haste.