Knowing The Language Helps

 New lead paragraph:  I want to talk about my position on pro gay candidates and pro abortion candidates because I think there may be some confusion out there with my position.  I never said I would never support a pro gay candidate or pro abortion candidate.  The reason why I didn't vote for Obama last time is (a) because his pro abortion stance is so out there and extreme and (b) there is no "redeeming social value" in electing Obama because he's not advancing the causes I DO believe in.  Certainly I would support a pro gay candidate if I felt he advanced the Progressive agenda and particularly if he or she helped to win the House back for Democrats.  I'm not above letting a candidate such as Wendy Davis "use" her pro abortion appeal to get votes she night not otherwise get- - to swing the tide and elect another democratic governor, particularly in a major red state such as Texas.  I respect Wendy Davis.  Stephanie Miller and company were just discussing her case this morning.  She did everything right.  She got married and had two kids at a young age and did NOT. get an abortion.  This is as opposed to Star Parker, who claims to have had five abortions and now she's flip flopped and berading women for being on welfare or having abortions or whatever.  If you're guilty of it yourself - - most likely I'm not going to listen to you.  For instance Rand Paul himself was guilty of "abusing women" in his college days with these loathed fraternity pranks, which I've never related to anyhow.  If I'm a woman and I've heard of the actions of Rand Paul as a youth, I'm not going to listen to another word he says.  The adage holds true with me is that "Actions speak louder than words" and a person's own "track record" speaks louder than some position they might now or have advocated in the past.  In the case of Wendy David the "Republican narritive' has problems with her because she isn't the "single mother' Republicans like to talk about.  Wendy Davis was responsible, and she got married and then divorced, and maintains a corgial relation with her ex husband, Jeff Davis (?) in raising their kids.  The thing is with Republicans - - and you see it in asshole parenting too - - that a parent, or a political leader, will foist off their own "sin" and shortcomings on to their kids, and make their kids be saddled with guilt that they should not be saddled with.  You see this a lot in Christian preachers with the adage "If it happened in my life, than you in the congragation are yourselves Guilty of the same thing", when this may not be the case.  Bristol Palin is accepted by the right even though she had an out of wedlock birth- - because she's on the right side of the political aisle.  Whereas Wendy Davis gets villified- - - which is kind of self defeating really for the Republicans to single her out for villification.  They say "We are reaching out to single women" when clearly the Republicans are NOT doing this by the way they treat Wendy Davis of Texas, who has shown an awful lot of courage and determination over the years, growing up in poverty and working her way out of it.

[Yesterday morning] before nine I had Thom Hartman on at some length.  His podcast, unlike any other on “Free Speech” does not have any commercials, and you get both his news summary and also the regular radio program.  I did not know that "internet neutrality" was NOT the law of the land.  Neither did I know that now there are forces in play which could forever take away the access we have to the internet that we thought was ours by natural right.  I have a renewal of of outrage against the FCC and this former head of the FCC who would just as soon that the internet wasn’t “free” as a public access vehicle but rather that if a ISP, internet service provider, so wanted to, they could monitor every site you visited and decide for themselves whether it was in their interest for you to visit that site, and could slow it way down, in Gov Christie fashion, if it didn’t meet with their approval.  In other words it’s internet by highway robbery, and now you have to pay them extra for the something by right you should get free.  Thom also said that only this ALEC right wing political group - - supports this Pacific Rim Trade agreement or whatever.  So why is President Obama getting into bed with such sleazy people.  If this his solution to”bi-partisanship”?   After this I had Ed Schultz on the Chicago station.  Ed has been stressing that the president has “nothing to lose” and has no reason at all to “be nice” to all these republicans who’d just as soon see him dead, except in that case Joe Byden would become President.  In fact the reason why the Republican Senate did not convict Clinton in his impeachment trial- - and fact the thing fizzled faster than someone who’s Viagra had just worn off- - is because it would give Al Gore a lock in power and a big leg up on the upcoming election of 2000.  After lunch of course I had the Monterey station tuned in.

You can't de-hydrate water.  When a Christian peddles something sometimes the kindest thing you can say or hope for is that it costs you little, and won't actually harm you.  This isn't always the case.

The best way to shut up these people who cry "class warfare" is - - "OK then, if we are not at war then make me your equal, for a man will hardly declare war on himself".   If you are not "fighting me" for anything, this should not be a problem".

Since when is a corpse giving birth to a baby whose deformation was caused by the thing that killed its mother two months ago - - any sort of "natural occurance?"

They say they love Nelson Mendella and hate Joseph Mc Cartny, but this is because they are more afraid of either of them, then they are of "appearing inconsistent".   Certain issues are so universal that they feel they have to lie to us to "fit in"- - even if the lie is comically obvious to one and all. 

Foreigners, have you found yourselves vexed in mastering the subtleties of the English language.  Do you find yourselves continually flumixed between the distinctions between common words such as "champ" and "chomp" or "whipped" and "whooped".   Or the most important distinction of them all, between "roasted" verses "broasted".  Well here at the Marcus Arelius school of proper syntax you learn the distinctions between "Oh, no it's not him" and "Oh no, it's not Him!".   You will learn the secrets foreigners have sought for years like the distinction between "spatter' and "splatter" and "spray" verses "spritz" or the difference between "sprinkle" verses "drizzle", particularly when discussing rain in southern California.  In our political chapter you'll learn the difference between "prudent' and "expeditious" and also learn the difference between "Pathetic" and 'Unfortunate".   You will learn that around 1950 the term "He's a really square fellow" did not refer to whether he was honest or not.   You will learn that Boston, Chicago, and Kansas - - were not at one time just places on a map.  You will learn the difference between "He didn't see clearly" and "Clearly, he didn't see".   You will learn the difference between "Are you going out with her?" and "Are you going out with her?   You will learn that your choice of whether to use "catch up with" and "interdict" depends on how cinnister your motives are.  You will also know that when Rush Limbaugh uses the word "ontological" in a sentence, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.  When any salesman uses the word "absolutely" as an answer instead of "yes", you can be pretty sure he's lying.  And just remember that we don't discriminate. The only color we believe in is green, which itself means something different in this sentence then if you heard it at an Al Gore seminar.   Some people who aren't fresh off the boat even have problems with the English language.  Maybe some day Chuck Smith will learn the difference between "flout" and "flaunt".   Black people should know that the word "jive" is a verb, - - not an adjective.  It means to be in synchronization.  Apparently even some Rock Groups think American's are a little "daft".  For instance changing Lead Zeppelin to Led Zeppelin was for the benefit of Americans prone to mispronounce words.  There is no truth to the roomer that there was a special Beatles album released in the South as "Leave It Be".  Some words though meant to enhance, actually detract from the thing they are modifying.  For instance saying "white and pristine" is better than saying "virtually white and pristine".  And "I promise to well and faithfully discharge the duties of my office" is better than saying "I promise to pretty well execute - - ".   Also saying "Jesus was a perfect manifestation of God" is better than saying "Jesus was a more perfect manifestation of God".   Also for John Lennon's information "spaz" is the noun and "spazzy" is the adjitive.  In like manner the word "loon" is a noun and the word "Looney" is an adjutive.   The word "snipe' is a verb, and the word "sniper" is the one doing it.  Try to remember these.  Foreigners would never want to get the words "homey" and "homely" mixed up.  There are an impressive number of freak -LY words that are not adverbs, such as friendly, cowardly, beastly, manly, lordly, scholarly,  kingly, unsightly, priestly, lovely, heavenly, miserly,  homely, wifely, timely, unseemly, matronly, costly, and lengthly.   And for you Doors fans out there "I'm gona love you till the stars fall from the sky for you and I" - - is incorrect grammar.  Capish?

In terms of the President's speech I'd give him an A minus.  It was a way better speech than I expected him to deliver.  And frankly if I were delivering that speech I could not have done that good a job.  I would have done a much more negative speech, laden with a lot of statistics like Bill Clinton's convention speech.  But I think Obama was good at reading the times, and used that guimick of the personal example, which I as president would most likely use sparingly.  That's because in a lot of cases it's a cheap shot.  I thought the logical organization of the speech was amazing.  He flowed in perfect logical progression from one topic to the other.  Maybe he didn't entirely hit it out of the park- - but the ball bounced off the highest part of the fence.  I think he was wise to stress the topic he did and frankly the President did much as Pat Buchannon had suggested he do in terms of personal content and what he enphasized.  Again I'm giving it an A minus.