First Evidence: America As It Fades

With the “election of the century” over it is appropriate to examine the black box of the disaster and decipher, for future safety or simple curiosity, how the systems failed. For the most part, this amounts to berating the so-called American people for whom a new term needs to be coined. American just does not fit anymore. That term, while geographically accurate to some extent, no longer connotes what it has historically. Americans can no longer be assumed believers in the American Way that Superman defended, or to have American Values like—well, in having to explain them to Americans, the point is self-making. Blaming the flaccid non-campaign of John McCain, or the deceptive slickness of the Obama one does not help arrive at an answer to the current problem: What to do. If it did, changing tactics would be prescribed. But here we do not have a tactical or even strategic electoral issue but instead have a total failure of the American electorate. Democracy is not the problem, the people are the problem. As a left-wing cartoonist put it, unintentionally locating profound truths in what he was attempting to depict as the igner’nt mouth of Sarah Palin; “It’s official. The American People are un-American”. Precisely. You can’t even blame activist judges for that, though rest assured there will be blame aplenty for them in the near future (the concept of “future” might need reassessment as well. As in What is America’s future? as opposed to, Does America have one?). Before my diagnosis gets dismissed as over-the-top sour grapes from a right-wing, nationalistic, American, look at exactly what has transpired.

For the first time ever, Americans have elected a President who isn’t American. This is not important from a technical aspect— though his father was not an immigrant as is erroneously reported by sycophants, he was a foreign national who stayed long enough to impregnate at least one American girl, then went home (accolades for the latter). Barry Jr then went on to spend some formative years in Indonesia, under the auspices of his also non-American step-father. When exactly he met his first American male is not specified in either of his masturbatory autobiographies. We assume it was his white American grandfather, whose heritage he seems more alienated from than that of dads’ one or two. He sure doesn’t have Kansas written all over him. But anyway, he is a US citizen, like many attending international schools in New York, Honolulu, Mumbai, Rio, Nairobi and Hu (that’s Shanghai for you provincials, who probably identify with just one specific country). Given that trait covers many who would never be considered for the Oval Office the question becomes Is he an American patriot, a patriotic American? The answer, sadly, is It Doesn’t Matter.

Back in April, CBS News/New York Times Poll took a poll. It is astounding that they took this specific poll, and one can only imagine that they would not do so today. If they did, neither they nor any other outlet of the OBC (the Obamian Broadcasting Conglomerate, comprising ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, NYT, LAT, Washington Post, among others) would publish it.

According to the poll, only 29 percent of registered voters said they would describe Obama as “very patriotic.” Seventy percent said that John McCain was. Nearly ¾- (74%) allowed that Barry was at least “somewhat patriotic”. And before overly vocal conservatives get blamed for Obama Bamming, the assessment of BJ’s character wasn’t just from Republicans. Of Democratic primary voters— that’s the Redest of the blue— 61% thought McCain was very patriotic, and only 39% thought so of Obama. Thirty nine percent. Less than 40% of the most loyal Democrats thought that Barry was a very patriotic American. Less than 30% of the overall electorate thought he was very patriotic. And a critical mass voted for him anyway. To be President of the United States. Wow. Let’s just let that sink in and fester a while…

Now patriotism can mean a lot of different things to different people, but in the American context, especially when talking about political leaders, it was always something good and desirable. So much so, that to question someone’s patriotism when that someone is running for office is considered terribly dirty and inappropriate,. It is ad hominem and McCarthyesque, to even raise the issue. Certainly BHO treated the question as such whenever it was put, which it almost never was being so beyond the pale. It was something he always feared, evidently, given his warnings about its potential raising. Which itself raises the interesting problem that it must be super-inappropriate to question the patriotism of someone whose patriotism is questionable; else the issue wouldn’t arise. But why should this be? We have to ask that now, as all evidence indicates that the patriotism thing is no longer of any consequence, or at least not much. Being seen as less patriotic than the other guy, anyway, is obviously no longer the kiss of candidate death, if it ever was. So long as a guy is “charismatic” and "eloquent", and champions Hope and Change, and makes some feel less guilty about their own being because of the way he looks, then who cares how American he is? To be concerned with that is so provincial, so “fly-over country”, so un-European, so so-old fashioned, so..what? So American is what. America always thought of itself as special. The Shining City on a hill, as in Reagan’s reference, was always a popular poetic description. Even MLKJr played it for all it was worth. If not something specialy American, what was he appealing to? Well, thankfully all of that is behind us now. We no longer have to embarrass ourselves in front of other countries by handwringing over what makes the USA the USA.

A new people can invite anyone to lead them, since they have created a separate notion of “our” best interests versus “America’s” best interest. We just need to define who “we” are in new way. If the new We is the part of the group formerly known as Americans (by outsiders if not by self-identification) that wanted Barry Obama to be their president, or prime minister, or guru, or general secretary, or whatever title they might prefer—no oppression of tradition anymore!-- then what of those who comprise the new Them? At odds with the ObamaNation? Anthropologists call the creation of a new core identity ethnogenesis. That is what this election was. The only question now is who should rightfully get the old name—those whose values made it worth something, or those who so craved Change they were willing to raze the City?

Asalt on Language Slugs


Once again the assault on the English language has reached a point where someone has to say something. I volunteer. The attack is not aimed at your typical everyday goof, or uneducated workman who is too busy actually doing something to worry about the niceties of linguistic competence. Rather, these shots are provoked by profoundly disturbing patterns of illiteracy that have infected those what oughta know better. This time the focus is not on the mispronounciators of the Nucyular PhD’s club, but the Illuminous Illiterati who fancy non-existent words when they aren’t busy misusing real ones.

Supposably is, assumably, something the Illiterati say when they mean supposedly. This is, I guess, the new irregardless. It’s not quite as colorfully bad. Irregardless, if it were a word, would mean the opposite of what the speaker would usually intend, i.e. without a lack of regard. “I said I would stick it out, irregardless of the cost. And I ain’t payin’ a penny more”. Supposably does not even have the redundant value of the double negative. Anything is “able” to be supposed, so the word is pretty much meaningless as a descriptive aid, like “imaginable”. Maybe it’s a confusion with presumably, but it seems less than presumable that the population so confused would be familiar with that word. Kind of like assuming that people who call dolphins fish are confusing the marine mammal with the little fishes of the same name. Shore they are.

A current phenomenon is a phenomena. As in, “The popularity of Obama is an amazing phenomena”, and, “Mass hysteria is a phenomena that has fascinated mankind for centuries”. But, to balance things out, “Most of the phenomenon we are seeing this election season are the same as always.” (Here I’m focusing on one homicide amidst that massacre). One is a phenomenon, more are phenomena. What in the world is hard about that? The problem with singulars and plurals seems to keep getting worse. The average Starbuck’s sipper never knew his one data from the pile, created the single criteria for discerning that from many, and now doesn’t know an incident, from an incidence, or incidences, from incidentses. In this cases the rule are two confusing, I guess.

“On” is not the all-purpose preposition. “I would like information on flaying”, or, “I don’t know the details on the rules of language”, “Good luck on that”, are cloddish plops heard more than stepped in, but just barely. One might like information about flaying or some other subject, or not be aware of rules or detail regarding something etc. In fact, the whole thing that makes it information is that it is specifically about something. Coffee and spaghetti sauce stains are probably “on” it, and that helps not at all. The point is there is a whole dusty vocabulary of prepositions out there that don’t get used when they should, and some get used when none is even needed. Do we all get it on that?

“Of” is a similar favorite of slugs with voice boxes. Of course there is the ancient crime of, “I should of done it differently”, which shows up with amazing frequency even in print. Commercials tell us you can get a hundred thousand dollars of life insurance. Really? Can I get five dollars of donuts and a dollar of coffee with my fifty cents of newspaper? Is sticking the word worth in front of the of too expensive of their money? Dollars, after all, are a unit of currency, not of insurances.

Now, some down and dirty diatribes:

The guy behind the mirrors in the supermarket meat section is not a butcher, he is a meat cutter. Butchers kill animals and gut them. That is pretty much mechanized now, but there are some good old-style hackers out there. Just for comparison, a mortician is not a murderer. At least not automatically.

A snake expert is a herpetologist, but it does not necessarily work the other way around. A lizard, turtle, or tuatara expert is a herpetologist too, as is any expert on reptiles generally. Just FYI, an ophiologist is, specifically, an expert on snakes. So if that’s what you mean, you should probably just say it.

In American any old member of a parliament—let alone a legislature which is really not a parliament—is not a parliamentarian. This, despite Webster’s weak knees. A parliamentarian is an expert in parliamentary procedure, not just any-old member of an elected body. Normally a member of such a body will be designated the parliamentarian, or in some cases one will be hired form outside. To use the term to refer to any suit filling a seat is an insult to true masters of parliamentary procedure which is, in a word, complex and in a phrase migraine-inducingly horrid. Robert’s Rules of Order makes the UCC look like instructions for Shoots n’ Ladders. The Brits and Cannucks disagree and use parliamentarian for their MPs. The British also think that fruitcake is pudding, fries are chips, chips are crisps, and Slim Whitman was a genius. The Canadians think Canada is a country and Quebec is loyal. Need I say more?

Any lawyer or layman who happens appointedly or electorally into a judgeship is not a jurist. A jurist is, rather, a well-respected expert on the law or at least some aspect of it. While the title has no official qualifications- the "democratic" character of the American legal profession prevents many enforceable relevant standards at all (somethings probably should have been kept while the crown got tossed)it demeans the likes of John Roberts when his fellow "jurist", The Honorable Lenny Brattmold of the Machallocany County Probate Court, let alone Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th circuit's Pluto extension office, is so mentioned.


When did a piece of statistical information become "a statistic"? It didn’t. Despite what the lexicographical fifth-column at Webster’s say. In fact, a so-called statistic is most often a datum; a word singular in two ways and rarely used even once. For comparison, an equation is not a mathematic and economic is not a noun for which economics is the plural. Time now to return to the New Ostrogoths’ descent on civilization. It is a politic.

A Historic Day for Democracy


Okay, the facts can now be reviewed. Yes, the nation has its first black chief executive, something some quarters say was long overdue and some are inexplicably deliriously happy about. The country was, and is some places still, carpeted and confettied with pictures of the Great Man, done up with the national colors, stars, eagles, etc. embraced by the masses of acolytes chanting his name. And he is ready. Equipped with a legal degree from one of the world’s most prestigious universities, he has already worked as a teacher. A communicator. A grass-roots organizer for action. Maybe his unique bona fides are best expressed in the honorary award he received from the University of Massachusetts, "Your gentle firmness in the face of anger, and your intellectual approach to matters which inflame the emotions of others, are hallmarks of your quiet integrity." ... "We salute you for your enduring and effective translation of a moral ethic into a strong, popular voice for freedom." Wow. Now that is a tribute. Endorsements like that mean the American academy has taken your measure and found you worthy, and they are no bourgeois judges of character.

All the problems of the nation will now be tackled directly in the name of justice, equality and freedom. The landside was not just for the Leader; the electorate went overwhelmingly for his party colleagues in the legislature as well. All branches of the government—executive, legislative and judicial will be controlled henceforth by a single party, overcoming possible the obstructionism that could block the bold agenda of the new leadership. The media, so critical of the past regime, is wholly on the side of the Change, eagerly aiding it, abandoning its historically claimed policy of neutral observation and information for the higher calling of national healing and the unity of ideals needed for purposeful progress. Antiquated pillars of common law—always alien to this country in any case, really—that have allowed the oppression of the common folk through their obsession with private property, private weapons, and the “right” to anti-social behaviors of many kinds, will be toppled. One-percent of the population-- overwhelmingly white-- controls over two-thirds of the national wealth—that will be fixed by the most ambitious income redistribution plan in the country’s history. Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, the nation is free at last. Except for the God part. This new government will not conflate religion and politics like the right wing bullies on their way out. In fact, the churches that have been critical of the Movement should watch their legal status; those that helped launch it will be clear from such scrutiny. So there we have it. Our review of the national elections in Zimbabwe, 1980.

Jumping forward 28 years, we have the benefit of hindsight re the sweeping and historic victory of Robert Mugabe. We know what happened. Boy do we know. Zimbabweans know even better, but darn it, they still like the guy better than they like George W. Bush, probably. Or would if they got ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and the New York and Los Angeles Times. For the Obamangos, what happened in the formerly prosperous Rhodesia-- now Zimbabwe-- was not particularly good. For all the headlines of the last week it is easy to forget that “historic” is a value neutral adjective. The invasion of Poland in 1939 was historic. The Bubonic Plague was historic. The asteroid that probably killed the definitely dead dinosaurs was prehistorically historic. Robert Mugabe—the Deliverer of the People—managed to completely and totally ruin the country by doing pretty much what he promised to do when elected the first time or subsequently. Robert—who, unlike, say Hillary Clinton-- knew what it was like to grow up as a black man in a country run by rich white people—was steeped in the tea of academic Marxism, and black nationalism. His buddies were Marxist-based terrorists. His hubris was so all consuming that he felt himself ready to lead his nation to greatness, or at least lead it, despite his youth and lack of experience. But it would be unfair to say that he would have considered himself ready to be the President of the United States. We are just talking about Zimbabwe, after all. The eagle is not a bald one, but a bateleur eagle- the Zimbabwe bird—and the star on the flag is one red one, not 57 or so white ones. That would just be crazy. What fools would have voted for him for that office? What kind of self-loathing country would do that to itself? Not mighty Zimbabwe. It might be a living disaster, but the people still have some sense about them.