Who would have ever thought that we’d need to put the names Paul Revere and Sarah Palin in the same sentence?
Archive for the ‘politics’ Category
Sarah Palin and Paul Revere
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 4, 2011
Posted in off topic, politics | Tagged: paul revere, Sarah Palin | Comments Off
What Does “States’ Rights” Really Mean?
Posted by languageandgrammar on May 13, 2011
By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
I love hearing the term “states’ rights” during political discussions because of what it seems to mean, which is something like “This radical idea I’m espousing has absolutely no chance of becoming law at the national level, but a few of the wacky states might agree to it; therefore, I’m a strong proponent of states’ rights.”
I’ll use what I heard from Ron Paul today as an example.
He talked about how the legality of drugs, such as marijuana and heroin, should be decided on a state level (states’ rights issue). He also said that his personal view is that there is too much of an emphasis on “the war on drugs” and that legalizing drugs would make them easier to control, reduce the strain on prisons, etc.
There is something to this idea, but good luck getting anything like that passed in the U.S. What politician is going to want to face a re-election campaign with that as fuel for the opponents? I can hear it now: “Joe Smith wants more heroin addicts in the parks where your children play. Vote for me, and I’ll keep your children safe.”
If he believed that this idea had national support, would he still believe that it’s a “states’ rights” issue, or would it be part of his national platform? Paul actually might leave it to the states because that tends to be one of the tenets of a true libertarian; however, in most cases, the language of “states’ rights” is an attempt to get a foothold for a policy that has little national support.
Politicians just can’t be that transparent.
Posted in language, politics | Tagged: language, legalizing drugs, ron paul, states rights | Leave a Comment »
Way Off Topic: Wealth, Lifespan, and Taxes
Posted by languageandgrammar on December 10, 2010
By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Warning: I’ve done my share of off-topic posts on the blog, but this one is more off-topic than most, so I’ve included this warning: Don’t blame me if the following offends your political sensibilities!
Politics is People
We often talk about politics in the United States as if it’s some sort of us-versus-them game, and that’s certainly been the case this week with the heated debate about taxes. Games though, don’t affect people’s lives, and politics is how we determine what kind of society we’re going to have.
Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, anyone making a reasonable analysis of the tax “compromise” will conclude that it’s much more advantageous to the rich than the middle class or the poor.
The argument can be made–and has been made for the past 30 years–that tax advantages for the rich is the best way to result in widespread wealth, but since the disparity between the rich and poor has grown during that time, it’s a shallow philosophical argument.
Wealth and Life Expectancy
The richer a country is, the higher the life expectancy is of its citizens. Also, the richer a segment of the population of a country is, the higher the life expectancy of that segment is versus the rest of the population.
An AOL article, After Inching Up for Years, Life Expectancy Drops Slightly, notes that for the first time in the history of the United States, the life expectancy of children might be less than that of their parents.
Perhaps the only reason is obesity, which was the focus of the article. I doubt that, but even if that were true, we can expect the trend of decreasing life expectancy–at least when compared to nations with less wealth disparity–to continue based on our current political decisions.
Politics is no game.
Posted in off topic, politics | Tagged: off topic, politcs, tax compromise, taxes, wealth and life expectancy | Comments Off
Come On, Dictionary
Posted by languageandgrammar on November 22, 2010
By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
When you heard that refudiate, Sarah Palin’s mistaken combination of refute and repudiate, was made one of the New Oxford American Dictionary’s words of the year, I’m sure that the first thing you thought about was the rant that languageandgrammar.com was going to write.
We chose, instead, to allow Seth Meyers of Saturday Night Live to do our work for us since he did such a great job last weekend.
The second thing you probably thought of was how ridiculous the choice was. Seriously, refudiate? Come on, dictionary. It was two words slapped together by mistake by a politician, and by politician, I mean someone who prefers money to politics since Ms. Palin left her elected post 18 months early in order to earn more money.
I think that the reason to make a clear error a “word” of the year in this instance is because of the person who made the error and because of the interest it would generate for Oxford dictionary. Media and Web attention is often more important than substance for many.
Hmmmm…maybe Sarah and the Oxford Dictionary have a lot in common.
Wait! That’s right. I promised to let Mr. Meyers rant for us….
Posted in grammar, humor, language, politics, writing | Tagged: politics, refudiate, refudiate word of the year, Sarah Palin, seth meyers | Leave a Comment »
Definition: Minority
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 15, 2010
I just want to get something straight since this sometimes seems to get confused: The word minority, as it applies to a population of people, means “a smaller party or group opposed to a majority, as in voting or other action.”
Minority Doesn’t Mean Inferior
In other words, the word minority is not synonymous with inferior. Minorities do not deserve equal treatment because the majority decides out of the kindness of their gracious hearts that these inferior people may now have what the majority has.
They should be granted the same rights as the rest of us because they’re the same as the rest of us; there are just fewer of them. Sadly, it’s more difficult for minorities to gain access to the same rights since they have less political and social influence–because of their number, not because of something inherently inferior about them.
Rush Limbaugh
That brings me to Rush Limbaugh’s quote about how President Obama wants to use Haiti to “burnish his credentials with minorities in this country and around the world, and to accuse Republicans of having no compassion.”
Most Americans, thank goodness, want to help the people of Haiti because they see people who need help. Rush sees a minority–apparently a minority who may or may not deserve our help. If we want to help them, it’s because we want to score political points with other minorities.
I’d love it if Rush Limbaugh went to Haiti to do his show on one condition–as long as he is treated the way he thinks a minority should be treated. He’d be a minority there–at least 90% of the population of Haiti is of African descent.
He probably thinks that the country is full of minorities, which doesn’t seem possible–unless his definition includes more than a reference to a relative number.
–Paul
Posted in language, off topic, politics | Tagged: haiti, language, minority, opinion, rush limbaugh | Comments Off
What Did the Pot Call the Kettle?
Posted by languageandgrammar on September 13, 2009
I’ve said it before, and I’m sure that I’ll say it again: We all make mistakes, so we at languageandgrammar.com don’t usually play the gotcha game when we see a mistake; however, there are instances when language and grammar mistakes are a little too funny/ironic/disturbing to pass up.
All of the political signs shown here come from a community.livejournal.com site, linked here and linked from the images. These aren’t our images (believe me, they’re not!), so we want to make sure that proper credit is given. Follow the link for even more examples.
What Did the Pot Call the Kettle?
I can almost hear “Prowd too be an Amaricen” playing in the background.
Honk for BETTER-ER Spelling
I hope that they didn’t take that poor kid out of school for this–some more learnin’ are needed.
Boycott Third-Grade English Class
I also have to wonder who would possibly think a hyphen would be needed—-and he looks so darn proud of his sign.
I could show more, but I’m getting too disturbed…
–Paul
Posted in grammar, humor, language, politics, writing | Tagged: grammar, humor, irony, language, mistaken signs, political signs, politics, writing | 1 Comment »
The L-Word
Posted by languageandgrammar on September 10, 2009
If you’ve read the blog much (or Literally, the Best Language Book Ever), you know that we favor direct, honest communication over indirect, insincere, trendy, or over-inflated communication, so I was thrilled when I heard President Obama use the rarely used l-word in his speech to the Congress last night.
That’s right–Obama said lie—L…….I……..E–about a lie being spread about his proposed health care reform. He didn’t say mislead, misinform, misspeak, factually inaccurate, disingenuous, or any other trendy word or non-word instead of the direct, straightforward word lie. Here’s that part of the speech:
Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
I found it refreshing.
I know that the word lie is often used in politics, but it’s not typically used as a way to refute a false statement. Lie is usually reserved for use in instances when a politician wants to create a distraction about something that is, in fact, true. For instance, when a politician is accused of flying to another country to have an illicit affair, he might say “it’s a lie” two days before he admits the truth and calls himself a repentant sinner.
Or he might yell out “liar” from the back of a crowded room when an honest statement is made that he doesn’t want to hear; however, it’s rarely used as it should be–to refute a dishonest statement.
A law dictating direct communication would pass by a unanimous consent here at languageandgrammar.com
–Paul
Posted in language, politics | Tagged: correct use of lie, health care reform, language, obama speech on health care, politcs, President Obama, writing | Comments Off
Political Theater
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 9, 2009
Maybe I’ve been following the news too closely lately, but I am tired of hearing every event in Washington, D.C., being described as political theater.
When President Obama tries to get a bill passed and republicans fight him, it’s called political theater. When democrats talk about the need for universal health care and republicans complain about spending, it’s called political theater. When republicans talk about the need to lower taxes during this crisis and democrats counter by saying that’s how we got into this mess, it’s called political theater.
It’s not political theater; it’s politics. Sadly, much of politics, by nature, is theater. Politics is often dramatic performance after dramatic performance, often by players that we’ve been watching on the stage for years or even decades. The performers are often more interested in how they look rather than the quality of the script, which are policies that will set the path for the country for decades or generations to follow. Instead of the dramatic performance being for a rapt audience in an auditorium, it’s for an apathetic country that spreads from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Politics is not theater, and we’d be better served if we focused less on theater and more on policy.
–Paul
Posted in language, politics, writing | Tagged: language, political theater, politics, President Obama, trite words, Washington D.C., writing | Comments Off
