Yesterday, while discussing syndicated columnists, I neglected to mention that the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board is also for the most part non-liberal. In an exchange with one of the readers who pointed this out, I received this e-mail:

I lean libertarian, and the inclusion of Steve Chapman on their editorial board certainly helps that (even if I totally disagree with him on The War). Considering the hard-core blueness of Chicago, the Trib board is a minor miracle – a legacy of Robert McCormick, I guess. I can actually read the editorial page and not want to rend garments and pull hair Reading the Trib since being a pup has probably made me a lot more sympathetic to the conservative cause, but it has also saddled me with the now seemingly hardwired but oddball spelling of “thru” for “through” – Joseph Medill and McCormick being big advocates of spelling reform, the paper used “thru” and a dozen other weird spellings into the 90s. Any time I write, “thru” manages to sneak its way into my prose. It’s a burden…

Spelling reform! I did not know that. Conservatives leading the way on spelling reform! Who says we hate change! I must learn more. Is spelling reform dead? Can it be revived? I for one would very much like to streamline some words. In fact, I could be convinced that whole letters should be ditched! Do we really need the letter C? K and S can certainly pick up the slack.

On a related note, one thing I think is really kind of fascinating is how spelling keeps changing. When I was going through old newspapers for my book, I was amazed at how the Washington Post and New York Times used “indorse” for “endorse” well into the 60s, if memory serves. As in “2 Roosevelt Sons Indorse Eisenhower” (a 1948 Washington Post headline).