ENGLISHCIDE

By

TOM MOLLOY

I hope I am not becoming a curmudgeonly old fuddy-duddy, but the misuse of language by some media professionals irks me. Specifically, I am accusing some Talking Heads of attempted Englishcide. Talking Heads make their living through the use of the English language. One would think the networks and local stations would insist on proper English usage.

TV’s Talking Heads are seemingly engaged in a conspiracy to assassinate our mother tongue. The Talking Heads on the local stations are the worst offenders, but those on the network and cable news programs are not far behind. Bring back Walter Cronkite!

I am going to point out three of the most common weapons in the arsenal of the Talking Heads assaulting my mother tongue.

1. Misuse of Copulative (Linking) Verbs.

When I was in elementary school, my 5th grade teacher, Sister Mary Tarcissia, introduced us to copulation (grammatical, not physical). We learned that some verbs, called copulative or linking verbs are followed by adjectives rather than adverbs.

Examples:

ADJECTIVE ADVERB

The food smells delicious. (The food smells deliciously).

John is becoming handsome. (Jack is becoming handsomely)

Jack grew weary. (Jack grew wearily

Even the hard-core Talking Heads probably wouldn’t utter any of the sentences with the adverbs because, aside from incorrect, they just don’t sound right.

However, there is one copulative verb that Talking Heads frequently abuse. Look at the short dialogue below.

Mary: How are you today?

Talking Head: I feel badly.

This usage seems to be growing. Does it sound familiar? The Talking head erroneously used a copulative verb followed by an adverb. Talking Heads who want to put on airs tend to use it. They radiate a sense of one-upmanship as they roll the /ly/on their tongues. Ironically many of these offenders are prone to utter sentences such as:

He plays bad.

When I hear someone say “I feel badly”, I ask,”Did you hurt your hand? ”This generally evokes quizzical looks.

2. Misuse of Pronominal Objects of Prepositions.

This increasingly common error usually occurs with the substitution of the fist person singular subjective pronoun “I” for the objective pronoun “me” Talking Heads who commit this atrocity often seem to have an attitude. It’s as if they are defiantly saying: “I’s got English and you doesn’t. ”

Occurring less frequently is the substitution of the third person subjective pronoun “he” for the objective pronoun “him” Those who maim English in this way apparently think that subjective pronouns don’t sound as sexy as objective pronouns. Maybe there is a metaphor here in the preference for objective pronouns. After all, it is the subject who has to initiate action: The object just has to sit back and receive it. Below are examples of these erroneous usages.

ERRONEOUS: Talking Head: It was a shock for Jack and I to hear the rumor that Bill O’Reilly is a closet Marxist.

CORRECT: It was a shock for Jack and me to hear the rumor that Bill O’Reilly is a closet Marxist.

ERRONEOUS: Talking Head: This was a great opportunity for he and I to tour the White House.

CORRECT: This was a great opportunity for him and me to tour the White House.

The objective of a preposition in English should be in the objective case.

3. Misuse of Conditional Sentences.

I have noted that some of my friends from such states as Wisconsin and Minnesota habitually use “would” in both clauses of unreal conditional sentences. I am not sure whether to label this as an error or as a feature of a dialect. At any rate, this usage is not standard educated English. This usage is also rampant among Talking Heads when they ad lib. I think Talking Heads should stick to Standard English.

NON-STANDARD: I would have come if would have told me.

STANDARD: I would have come if you had told me.

4. Closing Comments: I haven’t researched this, but my general impression is that schools of journalism are competing with schools of education to recruit the academic bottom feeders. I think many Talking Heads would benefit more from elementary school than a school of journalism. Of course, because of the massive and inexorable dumbing down of the curricula in our schools, copulative verbs, object pronouns and conditional sentences may now be taught in graduate school rather then 5th grade. Based on news reports, it appears that teachers are now enthusiastically teaching physical copulation to their eager students. How times have changed! News reports have not mentioned grammatical copulation.

I just discovered Fox and Friends, the Fox Network early morning show. I was going to assess their usage of the English language, but I became captivated by the vacuous comments made by the three Talking Heads who moderate the show. You can almost hear the air whistling in one ear and the other. I have to watch them again. I may do a separate piece about that show,

A Perspective on the Abortion Imbroglio

By

Tom Molloy

Abortion is one of the most contentious issues of our time. The two camps, the Right to Life and the Right to Choose, can seemingly find no middle ground. Each camp believes it occupies the moral high ground. If any issue sparks another civil war in America, it could be abortion.

The Right to Choose Camp has so far won the legal battle. The Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade decision discovered in the Constitution a woman’s right to privacy and right to choose. I can’t find any reference to either of these rights in the Constitution, no matter how many times I read it. I am brimming with admiration for the perspicacity of the justices who were able to find these rights in the Constitution. Quite a feat of legerdemain. Bravo!

At any rate, although the justices found a woman’s right to choose and right to privacy legally pivotal in deciding the abortion issue, these rights are not logically germane to the legitimacy of abortion. Not being a lawyer, I am not trained to decipher the hidden nuances in the Constitution. Therefore, I am not going to make many comments about the decision. Suffice it say that the decision reeks of what I call “Shuddabinism.” According to this legal, activist doctrine, if a judge thinks a right should be in the constitution but isn’t, the judge rules the missing right is now constitutionally protected. After all, it shuddabin in the Constitution. I believe a woman’s right to choose and right to privacy are products of “Shuddabinism”.

But let’s forget the law and hold abortion up to the light of logic. I had the good fortune to have a course in logic taught by a brilliant Jesuit. I realize that logic is not a la mode, and I risk being called an anachronism the by hip deconstructionists. Be that as it may, when you apply logic to the Roe Vs Wade decision, the inanity of the decision becomes manifest.

When we apply logic, we don’t begin with the rights of the woman who wants to abort; we begin with the rights of the fetus. The key to the abortion issue is the answer to the question, “When does the fetus become human--at conception or some time during the gestation period?” If the answer is “at conception”, then, ipso facto, the Constitution protects its right to life. Neither a woman’s right to choose nor a woman’s right to privacy are germane. Killing another human being, unless it is in self-defense, is a criminal act.

If the answer to the question is that the fetus is not human at conception, but becomes human sometime during gestation, we must ask other questions. The first question: “Does the human potentiality of the fetus grant it, from the moment of conception, the constitutional right to life?” I would argue that the human potentiality of the fetus would certainly suffice to extend to it the constitutional right to life.

If one argues perversely that the human potentiality of the fetus is not sufficient to extend to it the constitutional right to life, at what point in its development does it become human life and enjoy the constitutional right to life?
I think the answer is “at conception”.

These are the questions to ask to apply logic to the problem. I would argue emphatically that the fetus is human at the moment of conception. If it isn’t human, what is it? The fetus is a stage in human development.

You may not agree with my conclusion; nevertheless, this is the logical framework in which the legitimacy of abortion can be discussed. In this logical framework, we did not once invoke a woman’s right to privacy or her right to choose. Neither concept is relevant to the logical examination of abortion. Ultimately, a fetus either has the right to live or it doesn’t. There is no need to invent special rights for the mother.

In fact, the logical time for a woman to exercise her right to privacy and her right to choose is before she engages in sexual activity that can result in pregnancy. Yes, I know that rape victims can’t exercise these rights, but rape victims are a very small percentage of women who have abortions. Most abortions are performed because they are expedient.

As you have divined, my personal conviction is that the fetus is a human being and its life is constitutionally protected. However, although I am opposed to abortion, I am also opposed to passing laws to ban it. Too many people, not all of them monsters, do not believe that the fetus is a human being whose right to life is constitutionally protected.. Passing laws banning abortion will just create tens of thousands of “criminals”. Law or no law, women will continue to have abortions. Let God judge them. We really don’t need to add inmates to our prison population. Punishment is not the answer. I think those of us opposed to abortion should try to convince our fellow citizens that it is a vile practice.

Let's Put Iran Back in its Box

By

Tom Molloy

Iran has been a pain in the ass since the 1970’s and is now in the process of becoming lethal. I have been reading so-called experts’ comments about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. There seems to be a consensus among the experts that there is no viable military option to thwart Iran’s entrance into the nuclear club. Although most experts recommend diplomacy and, if necessary, sanctions. I get the impression that few, if any, believe that diplomacy or sanctions will be effective.

Our sanctimonious European allies, taking the word ‘peace” in vain, have forged lucrative business connections with Iran. They accuse us of being warmongers. Could it be that these paragons of rectitude are just greedy, short–sighted profiteers? At any rate, we can’t count on many of our European allies to support any aggressive policy toward Iran. With respect to the Russians and Chinese, they have profitable commercial ties with Iran and are not all interested in severing these ties. It is obvious that the UN Security Council is not gong to take any action strong enough to deter the Iranians from developing nuclear technology

Although I am not an expert on Iran, I spent about a year and a half there before and during the revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. I was impressed by the determination and resolve of those who overthrew the Shah. I also came away with the impression that Khomeini and his disciples were nuts.

The issue is not just what Iran intends to do, but what it is doing. Iran is providing total support to the Shiite insurgents in Iraq. That is to say, it's complicit in killing American soldiers. The Bush administration seemingly chooses to ignore this minor pecadillo. If the American people understood that the Iranians are responsible for the deaths of so many of our sodiers, they would demand that the administration do something. This administraton's hugely successful strategem has been to divert attention from problems by changing the subject.

In my opinion, the time for action has come. I disagree with the experts about the possibility of a viable military solution. In fact, I think there is an obvious military option that will put Iran back in its box. Just who am I to disagree with experts? I am someone who thinks that, if we listen to the experts in this instance, we are going to lose the war on terrorism. I think it’s important to stop the Iranians now. These guys are resolute, defiant and demented. They are supporting all forms of terrorism and sooner or later they are going to fund a devastating terrorist attack on the United States.

Given the resources think how easy it would be to shoot down a dozen planes in one day with shoulder fired missiles or to plant ten nuclear suitcase bombs in the downtown of 10 major cities. The guys running Iran hate us and they have the money to express this hatred in unspeakable ways. Now they are developing nuclear weaponry and our response is to engage in illusory diplomacy. No one believes that diplomacy per se will effect the desired changes in Iran’s behavior. These lunatics are going to bring about a terrorist act that is going to make 9/11 a footnote in the history books. Unless Iran knows that failure to change its behavior will result in awesomely severe consequences, diplomacy is a fool’s errand.

One of President Bush’s often stated bromides for continuing the Iraq campaign is: “We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” This is one of the cardinal tenets of the administration’s disinformation campaign. The implication is that the bad guys can’t spare 20, 50, or 100 guys to come over here and cause trouble. This, of course, is nonsense. I would accuse Bush of demagoguery, except that I really think he is dumb enough to believe what he is saying. We are not going to get a solution to the Iranian problem from an administration that thinks we are winning in Iraq.

The Iranians have turned the tables on us. The United States, the greatest power on earth, is desperate for crumbs from the negotiating table while the Iranians feast on our impotence. There is something very wrong with this picture.

What is the solution to the Iranian problem? How about overwhelming, devastating brute force? Let me suggest one option for the use of military force that would work.

Give the Iranians a list of instructions (note: instructions, not requests) and tell them that if they fail to comply with these instructions, we are going to destroy a city (name the city) on a given date. Suggest that they evacuate the city. Tell them that, after this demonstration of power (no nuclear bombs, thank you), we are going to give them a week to comply. Lack of compliance will result in the loss of another city each week. The catch is that we will not announce in advance which city will be the “City of the Week.” It will just be “Now you see it; now you don’t”. Inform the Iranians that any act of reprisal on their part will result in annihilation of their country. Iran will either comply with our instructions or there will be no more Iran. There will just be millions of people inhabiting piles of rubble. We might rename the country “Rubblestan”.

Can you imagine the entire Iranian urban population abandoning the cities? Total chaos. The Iranian government will cease to exist. The last thing on their minds will be developing nuclear weapons. If they want to be martyrs, let us help them on their way. Supposedly, martyrs, after killing women and children, are rewarded with a gift of 72 virgins upon their arrival in paradise. I suggest they crank up production of vrigns; they may need a lot of them..

Now I ask the experts, “Is this a military option that will work? Damn right it will.
And just what will the rest of the world say? Most nations, including our Western and Asian allies, will hem and haw. You see, according to their rules, we must wait for Iran to take out a dozen of our cities with suitcase nuclear weapons before we react. Nevertheless, after the initial shock, I think these nations will feel a sense of relief that the Untied States assumed a leadership position. They will also feel a sense of relief that the United States has begun to enforce the ”Pax Americana.”

Unfortunately, the Muslim nations will probably continue to believe that we want war with Islam. Many don't seem to recognize that a lot of people who call themselves Muslims are trying to kill us. I keep hearing from Muslim friends that the terrorists are not good Muslims. Well, I 'll let Muslims sort out who the bad guys and good guys are.. Meanwhile, I advocate killing anyone, Muslim or otherwise, who is trying to kill us.