Sunday, June 18, 2006

Another Modest Proposal

In the recent political turmoil over immigration, a most interesting aspect of this controversy has made an appearance. Some Congressmen are proposing to make English the official language of the United States.

How about we go one better and make Proper English the official language. This idea has legs: it could go somewhere. This modest proposal is a most fortuitous turn of events. A major paradigm shift in American culture could result in this modest proposal. A means is at hand to separate the ruling and working classes that money just cannot buy.

If Proper English were to become the only mode of acceptable communication then only those versed in grammar and usage would be able to communicate. The great unwashed and other undesirables would have no voice. Not only the problem of immigrants would be solved but the mass of most common Americans would be disenfranchised. Is this a great country or what?

All government communication would be done in Proper English. All citizens would still have the right to petition Congress for redress, however, they could only do so in Proper English.

Any form of improper English would be outlawed. Use of colloquial speech or slang would result in a ticket. Any form or document not using Proper English would be ignored. Only those who could communicate properly would be allowed to conduct business. Diction would have as much importance as the context of the message.

Split an infinitive, dangle a participle, or even mix metaphors and the offender would be fined or even restricted. Jail time could be spent studying correct English usage so that when the offender returns to society that could converse properly.

Lyrics in songs, dialogue in television shows and movies, or any other form of entertainment would have to be done in Proper English or the artist would lose the ability or least the access to continue in their chosen field. They would be a positive influence in language usage or they would be no influence at all.

Even here on the internet, if improper English is used, the NSA by monitoring all internet traffic would identify the language abuser and their access would be revoked. The same is true for voice communication such as cell telephones – which the NSA is already set up to monitor.

We may need a whole new agency to monitor language usage: Usage Police, Word Watchers, Grammandos, or Syntaxmen. Of course, made-up words like the previous facetious examples would not be allowed.

Those that can write and speak properly would come to rule the United States as they should. Someone the likes of George W. Bush could never become President again. Elitists would rule. Nor would we need ever worry about grassroots or populist movements again – that is unless they are properly phrased.

The study of English usage in school would take on a whole new meaning. No matter how good a person is in sports or science, unless they can use English properly, they will get no diploma. Children could learn earlier that to be a true American is to speak and write English better than even…well, the English. Maybe we need to change the name of the language we use to American.

I am not even sure this post would pass muster.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Fags and Flags

Marrying Fags are Burning Flags and Eating Aborted Fetuses.

Who are you going to vote for?

Am I seeing the hand of Karl Rove in Bush's latest support for the ban on same-sex marriage constitutional amendment?

Sure, all the pundits say the amendment hasn't got a chance passage in the Senate, but that's not the point. It's the mid-term election, stupid!

Make the anti-gay amendment an issue in state campaigns. Get their base to the polls. Tell them to elect senators that say they will vote favorably the amendment next time it comes up. It's not whether it will ever come to past, it's getting their people elected and maintaining the majority that is important to the Bushies.

The same is true with the flag burning amendment. A law will not do because of that liberally inspired First Amendment right – it will have to be an amendment. Again, it's not the passage of the actual amendment; it's the thought that counts.

Candidates in key states support the "anti's" – anti-gay, anti-flag burning, anti-abortion – and get their base to the polls is the strategy. At least that's what I think it is.

As much as I disapprove of the Bush administration I have to admit Karl Rove is a political Machiavelli the likes of which I have never seen before.

I am looking for his not so visible work in the up coming election. One thing he does is appeal to the conservative Christian base – the fags and flags issues. If what I'm saying is true, abortion should come up some how some way before November gets here.

Another of his infamous strategies is to attack where you least expect him to: the opposition candidate's greatest strength. Attacking Max Cleland on patriotism in the last election is a prime example of this tactic. A disabled vet bound to a wheelchair because of injuries while in the service and Rove goes after him for being soft on defense. I would not have believed it if I had not seen it.

If I was running for senator or representative as a Democrat, I would (of course) know my political strengths. But I wouldn't take them for granted. That's where the attack will come – and importantly – it may not come until just before the election when it is too late to react.

You may not see Rove's strategy until it's too late. Like the push-poll that attacked John McCain in South Carolina.

Also, look for an exposé that will later turn out to be bogus – especially an attack in the local MSM on Rove's candidate that will be proven false. Where ever did those bogus memos on Bush's National Guard service come from? While the memos were false, what they said was not, but that got lost in the feeding frenzy on CBS and Dan Rather. After that, Bush's National Guard service (or lack there of) was safely insulated from further attack. If that's not Roveian, I don't know what is.

This November may be the most important election to the Bush administration, ever. While 2000 and 2004 were just to get elected, this one will determine if there will be investigations and testimony before committees. That will not look good even on Fox News.

They must win. Democrats cannot be allowed to get the majority in either house of Congress. All the tricks need to come out of the bag. Nothing is more important.

Watch and see.

If I was a Democratic candidate in a key state, I'd feel like Sarah Connor being chased by the Rovenator.