I posted this at another site and wanted to repost it here:
Re. Michael Jackson. This is about the most bandwidth I'm willing to spend on it. Not worth my time. I might be able to accept your legal interest Andrew but it's just another useless thing to fill the 24/7 news cycle. Becides - the media tried hard to make the Phil Specter and Robert Blake trials into some type of event and failed. When this is over they will find another pretty white girl, white pregnant woman, or some other heinous crime visited upon a photogenic white woman to fill the airways. The racial politics of the media industry (specifically when trying to sell the victim) and the manipulation of viewers is a crime in and of itself. I also don't get the gaggle of "friends and family" that come out of nowhere to spend time of talk shows. Is it just to be on tv? Most reputable news agencies don't pay for interviews. I'd like to think I would resist the urge if I were in a similar situation.
If Jackson is guilty, I feel sorry for the victims and would hope he gets put in the general population at a prison. If he's not guilty then I would feel at least a little sympathy for him in the sense that our society punishes the odd and misunderstood. Not that I condone what I see to be his lifestyle or inability to connect with reality.
I hope that to be the last post of mine on Jackson (at least until a verdict)...but I reserve the right to comment again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I hate to say it, but I really think that this might end with his suicide. I really don't think Jackson would go to Pound Me In The Ass Prison.
And for what it's worth, I kind of see Jackson as very similar to the Roman emperors. Very insular, almost stunted, with a profound sense of entitlement and overdeveloped self-importance.
Dude, seriously, re-read the sentence below. If you can't find the error I continually harp on, Sarah and I are going to send our Grammar Minions Narn Bat Squad after you.
"I also don't get the gaggle of 'friends and family' that come out of nowhere to spend time of talk shows."
Unless, of course, you want to argue that "gaggle" is a genderless collective noun, which is an argument I could respect, even though the offending word still hurts my ears. OUCH OUCH OUCH!! And if that's your argument, you've got a subject-verb agreement boo-boo.
I only bring this to your attention because I care about your reputation as a fellow Grammar Nazi professional.
[No, "of" instead of "on talk shows" is not the error. Take a second whack at the pinata.]
I is not changing a thing...it will stand in error. And I does not haves nor wants a reputation as a grammar Nazi...
Thpppttt!!!!
Well, I'll chime in on the whole 'grammar nazi' thing.
Language, by its nature, is transitory and arbitrary, a largely illusory (and not incredibly dependable) human cultural construct, its usefulness dependent upon an agreed or shared set of assumptions about both reality and language itself. Languages live and die all the time. There have probably been multiple thousands of languages, so there's really a multitude of different ways to think or speak about a particular subject, none of them any more right or wrong than another. The only question that really matters is, "Were you understood?" If so, then cool. If not, then bad. Who decides what is correct and what is not? The participants.
To quote Jeremy Bentham, "Let us not judge on authority; let us seek reason." I would argue that assertions of improper usage of English rest on assumptions of some implied 'authority' received from the past, rather than on reason. I, on the other hand, find that it is reasonable to assume that if you got your point across that what you said or wrote was 'correct'.
I also find assertions of authority over the proper way(s) to speak or write to be anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian. And distasteful in the extreme. But maybe that's just me.
I tend to hate anything that smacks of an aristocracy.
Don't get me wrong. I think everyone should be able to 'speak correctly,' to within a reasonable ability. But let's be honest. Most American English, at least, as it's commonly used, is not terribly dependent upon proper grammar or syntax. And that's not really a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's just a thing.
HOWEVER...Mr. Thing has in the past regaled us with tales of folks who use language inappropriately (specifically with reference to vocabulary), so I think if you're going to be careful with language, you should be careful with all aspects of the language. I'm not saying anyone has to be perfect (and the munkee girl has been known to, say, forget how to speak English beyond calling every object a "thing"), but we should all strive to use the language as correctly as possible without impeding expression.
So, if you want to sound like JarJar (see Ken's post above), knock yourself out, but don't blame me if you sound unedumacated when you start strategerizing for your future political career. As for me, incorrect relative pronoun usage is something up with which I will not put. (For those of you who still read Churchill.)
Wilhe the porepr use of lnagauge is iptornamt, we mnsut't frgeot taht eevn its uagse is jsut aotnehr lyear of rlaevtie sbomlsyim. The ecautedd stnayx of one guorp is the fiolsoh diverl of aohnetr. It is the cnolicft bwteeen the nuaatrl mvmneeot of lnaaggue to chaos and the drisee for a sgilne sdatnrad manes to cvneoy ieads taht aolwls ppleoe to cumominatce in an aptadvie and ecfetfvie mnaenr.
But that's just my opinion.
Post a Comment