FOR WHOM PROGRESS SOUNDS GOOD TOO

In the name of progress—real progress, not a synonym for social destruction as the term is used by the politically sinister—it is time to recognize the other side of stupid or lazy English. These are the “rules” of the language that serve no purpose other than ass-painedness. Some have been commonly complained of, some have been appealed previously, even for eons. Or at least a long time. Others are my own pet causes to which some will object. They are wrong. These things will also serve to demonstrate that conservatives are not simply blind protectors of convention and ancientness. Sometimes, change is good. But only when it is for a well-thought-out reason, not just when it seems childishly neat-o, and only when it is being replaced with something superior. Boy has that one been blown (Miss him yet? YES).

1. Question: Is it who or whom? Right answer— who. Always. There is absolutely no reason to maintain whom as a word as it adds absolutely nothing to communication. “To who are you referring?” is no less literate than any other construction to whomever it is conveyed. The awkward wording is a different and also assailable problem, as seen below.

2. Don’t end a sentence with a preposition--- it might make your meaning too clear. If “Who are you referring to?” is incomprehensible or unnatural sounding to you, then you are not a native English speaker and what does sound natural to you is probably something we uniculturalist Americans are not interested in. Anyone who knows anything about grammar has always been wise to this piece of pedagogical pedantics anyway. It is a rule from Latin that was arbitrarily stuck on English by prissy scholars who came from a part of the world where Latin speakers lived quietly in dusty old books, instead of sneaking into the country to undermine its native tongue. A tongue which ends just fine with prepositions and really does not need the tortured constructions forced by being determined not to do so. Note this does NOT give license to unnecessary or repetitive prepositions that aren’t objectionable because they are at the end of a sentence, but because they don’t belong anywhere at all. So, “I can give to whoever I want to” is still not correct, as, “I can give it to whoever I want”, is all that needs be said.

3. If an individual wants to speak properly without sounding like a moron they should assert their individual responsibility to do it. He or she should not assert his or her whatever, because that sounds bureaucrat-eseishly stupid, stilted and unnatural. The solution is, really, to use he, his, and him for the general as has been done since the beginning of English, but since the PC police frown on this, and some people for some reason want to please that group of goons, then they is the only alternative as there is no singular gender-neutral word in the language to substitute except “one” which requires other changes and is not as natural as they is.

4. Hopefully, people will change. Not just the way they speak, but entirely. But the point is that hopefully is used “wrongly” in this construction because there is no other word for what is meant. That right there is the perfect scenario for a new word or new usage. So, either make up the word hopably—which is needed but not allowed for no good reason—or accept hopefully in the way that it is used and give it some credit for filling in doing another word’s job due to its enforced absence.

5. I wish I were or I wish I was? It’s all subjunctive and there is no need for it. I wish it was true that was was what it is and were was not. Period. There is no need for the subjunctive in English, which never has been strong and which no less than Fowler (a big authority) said was on its way out back in 1926. God, how long must it linger. Would it were that were were not, but was was.

“WE THE PEOPLE…..HELLO?”

Of all the obvious criticisms that can be made of the Democratic Party, the worst one gets overlooked by the Obimedia almost thoroughly compared to others. Taking the DP as an institution consisting of its members in government (in an organic model, these would be analogous to tumors, or parasites, or mostly, parasitic tumors) and the enabling activist organizations that support them (the originating toxic agent that creates them, and the tumor’s blood-supply vessels) Yes, corruption and conflict of interest get an occasional whisper—always accompanied with a qualifier about how conservatives were somehow worse. Yes, broken promises and other euphemisms for lies and perfidy get an infrequent remark acknowledging, at least, that some political non-sophisticates and Republican extremists might call such spades spades. But no, we hear nothing about the DP’s, or at least its leadership’s, complete contempt for democracy. Contempt would be the correct term because it is not something they merely ignore— like the first two--, but a thing that they actively attack and abhor. If there is one thing that political “progressives” hate more than Western civilization, Christianity, or American values, its public opinion. The most glaring recent example, of course, is the Gay Rights Revolution that has decayed into the Gay-Agenda Persistent Nagging and Whining. Nothing has more enraged liberaldom than the passage of Proposition 8 where the peoples’ decision has created unparalleled bitterness and cattiness. We now have a Bizarroworld tyranny of the minority where Miss Bizarroworld (aka California) gets lynched for expressing a popular opinion held by the majority of people, and formally endorsed by them at the ballot box. And stupid old James Madison thought it was minority views that needed protection.

The most currently arresting and immediate example of this is the so-called health care bill in any of its various versions—Obamacare Genus Edition, House 1, Senate, House 2.0/Reconciliation, ad nauseam. For reasons unexplained, the analysis of this process is less than even superficial. Many media moments are spent talking about how exactly the White House is pressuring Dems in Congress who do not want to vote for the Plan, how the House leadership can force the votes at the most advantageous times for them (often it is 3 AM on a Sunday during a vacation, while locked in a vault with no lights), and whether the Senate leaders can get away with abusing and or violating their own rules and calling it “reconciliation” in order to bypass the pesky requirement of an actual number of votes to pass a bill. Stupid parliamentary procedure. In other words, the discussion is all process and no substance so far as the “merits of the case” go. None of these pundits are focusing their barritone curiosity on why exactly all this threatening, bribery, arm-twisting, and deception are needed: Because the public doesn’t want it.

Ouch!?— well, no, not really. The liberal elites are fully aware of this and don’t give a damn. That is the really horrifying thing here. The Obamastration and the Dems in Congress (who for mysterious reasons feel “pressured” by the executive branch that doesn’t give a spit about them), are simply determined to pass something they can call health care reform, the public be damned. Three elections and consistent opinion polling tell them the people they are supposed to be representing do not want this. But they keep riding the lame horse anyway. Their own advisors tell them to back off this thing— but they keep pressing forward, waving their rubber swords in the air. Obama himself is blitzing the country, trying to rally public support for something he claims was part of his electoral mandate, and thereby giving obvious lie to that claim. Meanwhile everything else on the socialist agenda sits— cap and trade, more “stimulus”, card check. With this kind of neglect at the helm, the ship of state might just right itself by itself. Then the America Is The Problem crowd itself will be very upset; their destructive machinations gone awry, or rather, aright. So why are they doing this? Why so hell-bent on this health care monstrosity, at such political expense?

There are probably a lot of answers, but none of them are decent in any sense. Some constituencies from the blackest core of the Party insist on it as a move toward their real, easily smellable goals. If our Terry character is any indication, then the “Democratic base” insists on something. But anyone who actually thinks that this has been about insuring the uninsured could be easily fooled and placated by the right touchy-feely words from the Obamachine, backed by the Obamedia.

No, it has to be about ego. Enormous, baseless, and uncontrolled. For the politician-activists who’ve spent long years working toward this, and Obi who has invested his self-image in this (and has a big enough ego to drag a party, and a country down with him, easily) this outrage must be completed. It’s all about this tree—not any forest.

It also has to be about hatred. Hatred, in its pure irrational sense, of private enterprise capitalism and individualism that leads any person capable at least of buttonhing his own shirt to honestly believe that government can, let alone should, do much of anything well. Despite all evidence to the contrary, these socialist fundies are convinced that government health care really is a desirable thing. No different from their socio-economic archenemies who know without reflection that men walked with dinosaurs through the earliest days of Earth 60 centuries ago.

But in the end, it doesn’t matter why they believe the ludicrous or why they insist on this vainglorious path even in the face of their own (we hope) destruction. The fact is that the people don’t want this sick fix and if representative democracy or democratic republicanism have even the slightest validity anymore, then The Established Elite cannot be allowed to do this. The Second Amendment starts to seem more and more like the fundamental issue undergirding the politics of everything. And that is probably not good.