Replies

HTML eats excess white-space. If you type two or more spaces in a row between words HTML will reduce all of the spaces and tabs to a single space or tab. Carriage Returns (the Enter key) won't do you any good either. Without special care it is easy to end up with a wall of unreadable text. It's quite cruel. If you want white-space beyond a single space you need to insert it explicitly by typing   or  for a CRLF and a paragraph, respectively.

Break   works like you expect Enter (or Carriage Return) to work. It gets you a single LFCR (Line Feed Carriage Return, just like an ancient typewriter). Two styles of break are in use, the preferred version (used in HTML 5) is   which contains its own closing tag. Paragraph  makes what follows into a paragraph set off by linefeeds. Neither  or   requires closing tag. The browser software will assume a paragraph is closed when it encounters the next . Closing a paragraph actually makes good sense, closing a break seems like a waste of perfectly good characters.modulo the HTML gods referenced above.

Blockquotes are another useful trick. This entire paragraph has been enclosed in blockquotes. Anything you put between <blockquote> the example text <blockquote> gets indented and set off by linefeeds before and after. This example, rendered, will look like
the example text
the text above. Blockquotes can be nested (placed one inside another) and are a great way to distinguish the source of a quote from your own text.

Preformatted, or the <pre> tag provides a way to grab a bunch of text that is already formatted with tabs and spaces and not have HTML eat all that lovely white-space. As usual a closing tag is required with this </pre>. You can use this trick on a webpage but you need to realize that if the text you are copying wraps because it runs into the edge of the page and not because there is a CRLF present it will behave the same way in the preformatted chunk.

Horizontal Rule <hr> generates a horizontal line the width of the page. People often use this to separate their comments from those being commented upon. This also does not need a closing tag. A width can be set with this element, <hr width="150"> looks like:

Note that it is automagically centered. You can align="right" or "left" to position it more explicitly.

Fight the Free Sh☭t Nation

Thanks Mycroft. I did pick up a thing or two in 30,000 posts to FR, and agree that a lack of paragraph breaks can be confusing. It's just been so long that I posted here, and I assumed (incorrectly it turns out) that HTLM formatting was not required in the post commentary. I'll try to never let it happen again (what was I thinking?).

Under deep cover as a graduate student at perhaps the most liberal University in the United States, I have been away from FR for quite some time now. I've learned a lot about the way an intelligent and highly educated liberal east coast mind works. I believe that this article presents something of a teachable moment in that regard. I won’t speak to Mr. Cohen’s intelligence, but he would qualify, by most standards, as highly educated. I believe that he has a masters in journalism from the Pulitzer school at Columbia. He has also shown a willingness to cross the aisle on matters of foreign policy, particularly when the pertain to Israel. When he writes about terrorism, I read him, if only to hear what the other side is being told about an issue. –And that, in a nutshell, is the main issue for Conservatives when it comes to Benghazi. We are appalled at the death of four Americans, and the fact that the perpetrators are still at large. Given the duration of the attack, we wonder whether anything could have been done to save them. We recognize the White House’s response for what it was: A misuse of power in an attempt to sweep inconvenient facts under the rug so as not to allow them to influence an upcoming election. We are angered by the actions of sworn public servants to hinder subsequent investigations. But, most of all, we see this issue as a touchstone for something very wrong in today’s political marketplace: A complete breakdown in the media’s obligation to present all of the facts to their audience.

In the last three years, for obvious reasons, I went to great efforts to avoid talking about politics. I was surrounded by affable, but true-believing, liberals. I was investing a lot of time and money into an advanced degree. I could not afford to waste it arguing. Nevertheless, I cannot tell you how many times I was surprised to learn that my highly intelligent and successful professional Ivy League classmates in their 30’s and 40’s had not heard names, places and terms that I supposed were common knowledge: “Single Payer System.” “Kermit Gosnell.” “Brian Terry.” The difference between a “machine gun” and a “semi-automatic weapon.” The fact that Mitt Romney had no intention of putting GM out of business and laying off all of its workers. Or that John McCain never said he wanted to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine. Or that Paul Ryan was trying to SAVE Social Security and Medicare. “Benghazi.” Not “didn’t care” –“never HEARD.”

What became very clear to me during this time is the extent to which liberals and conservatives get their facts from very different sources. Personally, I have always disagreed with the Conservative canon on two or three important issues. Which ones they are is irrelevant. I make a point of never proselytizing here. The point, which most people here are very aware of, is the liberal tendency to form opinions without having all the facts. It seems that we have become so politically divided in this country that virtually everyone who cares about politics gets all of their information from entertainment news shows (like FOX and MSNBC) or simply entertainment (like Comedy Central and the major networks).

We know that journalism appeals to a disproportionate share of young liberals. There is a liberal culture in media, and that probably will never change. We live in a center-right nation that gets its news from people that it disagrees with. That was the inspiration behind FOX, and the reason why it is the #1 rated cable news channel. Unfortunately, somewhere in the last decade, (I would say it was during the first Obama campaign), liberals on other networks began to assess their ratings correctly: They finally understood the reason behind the fact that 1/3 of the nation preferred to get their news from people they agreed with, and decided to write them off in favor of the other third. In doing this, they put themselves into competition with themselves for the liberal base. At that point, they decided to trust FOX, and only FOX, to present one side of the story.

Liberals who watched the news used to hear views, news, and opinions about things that they didn’t care about because journalists took their jobs seriously. Now they get a steady stream of what they want to hear, and if they’re lucky, weak straw-man arguments like the ones presented in the last paragraph. Is it any wonder that they (Mr. Cohen included) have finally concluded that a political philosophy that includes geniuses like (you don’t have to agree with everything these people say, just recognize that they are among the smartest political philosophers alive today) Dr. Ben Carson, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Gigot, Thomas Sowell, George Will, Laura Ingraham, Daniel Henninger, Mark Steyn, etc., is nothing but a bunch of uneducated yokels? They are working off a different script.

I suppose that I will need to turn these thoughts into a standalone vanity piece at some point when I have more time. For the moment, I will say that I have come to the conclusion that FOX is actually part of the problem. The solution is for more conservatives to get themselves hired at liberal news networks. The solution is not another network perceived as only conservative. That will only exacerbate the problem.