Category Archives: English

An English Speaker’s View Of ‘A Room To Destroy’ *

I’m going to defend Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who claims she misspoke or was misconstrued when she said about the rioters in Baltimore: “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

This is a case of English misspoken. These days I no longer understand what most people around me say, because they can’t put together grammatically coherent sentences. What the mayor meant to convey is that there were unintended consequences to giving the crowds the “space” to protest: hooligans took advantage of the provisions put in place for peaceful protest.

“We also gave those who wished to destroy, space as well” came out wrong. The fact that the mayor’s response to the riots mirrored her botched words—her police force stood down—didn’t bolster the credibility of her office’s clarification.

* The post’s title is a botched play on E. M. Forster’s “A Room With A View.” Sorry, my bad.

The Hideousness Of Humorlessness

Critique, English, Intelligence, The Zeitgeist

On the facts, “The Worst Crimes Against Humanity, Ever” were those of Communism. While being humorless does not come in a close second or even third—it’s still pretty hideous.

In response to the column “The Worst Crimes … “ WND reader “krowbro” (10 hours ago) proved himself a scold and a sourpuss. He quotes this line from my column disapprovingly:

This month, Kim Kardashian and Pope Francis, in order of importance …

The gets that big fat finger of his wagging:

Does this add anything to what would otherwise be a rather insightful commentary? I get the point, Ms. Mercer thinks Pope Francis is inconsequential, but what the heck does that have to do with crimes against humanity? Including snarky snippets like this in one’s commentary detracts from the message and makes one appear sophomoric.

My reply:

No, you don’t get the point of, “This month, Kim Kardashian and Pope Francis, in order of importance …”: This is called humor; cynicism; it’s a quip about a culture in which more people value KK than value the Pontiff. Wit should not need explanation, nor warrant a scolding. Even worse than the importance of KK to our corrupt culture is the inability to “get” an underhanded dig.

What’s so elusive about my sense of humor? Humor is the reason I like Ann Coulter and think she’s immensely talented (even though I disagree with most of her position): She’s witty.

Move On. Nothing More To See @ The Site Of The Rand Paul Crash (Ron, Rand: Politicians Both)

English, Iran, libertarianism, Republicans, Ron Paul

Libertarians seem fascinated with tracking Rand Paul’s every move, waiting for some critical-mass of evidence to show that Rand is no libertarian. How often can one relive the same eureka moment? Move on. There’s nothing more to see at the site of the Rand Paul crash.

“Rand Paul: Action Hero, Or Political Performance Artist?” was penned in 3/1/2013, when Rand was first presenting himself to the public in a big way. Back then, there were still questions to be asked. Matters were inconclusive on the Rand Paul front.

Like most Americans, I like an action hero. I am just incapable of telling whether Rand Paul is such a hero, or whether he is no more than a political performance artist.

One thing should always be a certainty for libertarians:

“It is a smart libertarian who retains a healthy contempt for politicians, even the libertarian ones. Ultimately, they’re all empire builders, who see nothing wrong in using fame and the public dime to peddle their influence and their products.
The people—at least those who’ve never fed at the “public” trough, unlike every single politician and his aide—are always morally superior to the politicians.
In all, some politicians are less sickening than others, but all fit somewhere along a sick-making scale.”

The Daily Beast’s “Why Real Libertarians Hate Rand Paul” is yet more hoo-ha about Rand Paul’s latest un-libertarian mistep—Paul signied Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) open letter to “the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The letter stated, rather condescendingly, that Iranian leaders ‘do not fully understand our constitutional system.’ Soon a new president would be in office, Cotton wrote, and that president could (if Republican, would) ‘revoke’ any executive agreement President Obama signs.”

While the Beast pardons Justin Raimondo for his prolonged Rand Paul crush; I cannot forgive the Beastly writer for a usage such as “cyber-bullying” and “… it feels like.”

UPDATED (3/22): Ron, Rand: Politicians Both.

Ron and Rand Paul are just … politicians. A few years back, in the midst of the Ron Paul orgy, Karen De Coster pointed this out rather gruffly. She must have gotten flack of the order even she didn’t feel like handling, because she did not repeat the observation. It bears repetition. Here: Rand and Ron Paul are politicians. Senior is way better than junior, but he too showed all the trappings of a politician. We just turned a blind eye, b/c he was ours.

Michael Savage On Hillary Saga, Selma & A Soulless President

Barack Obama, Conservatism, English, Hillary Clinton

Michael Savage read my mind. I’ve been ruminating on the visceral hatred the liberal media harbor for Hillary Clinton, and have come to Savage’s excellent conclusion: “It’s because they want Elizabeth Warren to run. To them, Hillary isn’t liberal enough.”

“Savage added ominously, ‘If you think Hillary is bad, Elizabeth Warren is even worse.'”

To this I would add only that the media took the same tack with Barack Obama, once they anointed him as their man. The exact dynamics were at play, showcasing that while there was a “red/blue split in the Democratic Party that had become a gash”; there is no such schism in the media.

This from the June, 2008 column, “Mindless Monolith: Media Pick Obama”:

The top Democratic dogs finally got their way: Senator Clinton, who lost her party’s delegates but won the people, will concede the Democratic nomination. Media pack animals are also on top of the world.
From the AP’s Charles Babington to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to Wolf Blitzer and his “best political team on television”: They had all worked their hearts out for Obama. …
… By now the red/blue split in the Democratic Party had become a gash. Clinton was getting the red, Reagan Democrats—seniors, whites, blue collar and rural voters. “Barack Obama,” in the words of another veteran news guy, the always-edifying William Schneider, “was winning the blue Democrats: young voters, upscale urban professionals, well-educated liberals and African-Americans.”
Red versus blue meant left versus right. Those who own guns voted for Hillary; those who don’t, and think you should not, voted for Obama. One more thing: Because they’re older, more blue collar, and more conservative …

Also via Kathy Shaidle’s WND, TALK RADIO WATCH column comes an overview of the rest of what the talkers on the right said this week. Kathy, no doubt, mined the best of the week. Other than Savage, there is nothing new, interesting or important in anything said by this lot. See for yourself.

Savage’s thoughts on Obama’s Selma speech are also insightful, contrast as they do with the milquetoast assessment at National Review. OK, not milquetoast, but fawning. If anything, NR writer Quin Hillyer—who echoes Chris Cillizza’s sentiments on the Selma speech—is the fine writer he claims Obama is. The paragraph Hillyer excerpts is vintage Obama in its hackneyed simplicity.

Back to Savage on Selma and on a soulless man (courtesy of Kathy): “’Obama’s Selma speech was a new low point in the American presidency,’ Savage said at the top of the week. Comparing it to ‘classic Soviet propaganda,’ he went on to say, ‘I’ve diagnosed what’s wrong with this man and his presidency: Obama doesn’t have a scintilla of forgiveness in his soul.’”