May I Have My Language Back...Please?

You know, Southerners have always been ridiculed and have caught much flack regarding their speech and the bastardization of the King's (and Queen's) English down through the years from their more urbane and sophisticated counterparts north of the Mason-Dixon, a.k.a., yankees. But we have been able to communicate with each other, and to the world, to a degree slightly beyond the screeching of the howler monkey or the chest thumping and grunting of the larger primates. So much so, that we have been able to endow the nation and the world with such gifts as NASCAR racing, country music, a handful of distinguished writers, some decent universities, a poet or two and quite a few cooks and cookbooks.

Now, granted, we have our few idiosyncratic words and phrases which may throw the unenlightened into a semantic tailspin such as: "D'jeet chet?", to which the reply might come: "No, d'jew?". A simple translation of which is an inquiry into a moment of hunger or 'Have you eaten, yet?' hence the reply: 'No, did you?' Or, the ever popular, ' Howzhyee Momma n'em?', translated as 'How is your family?' These might be two questionable examples of Southern parlance not in total compliance with the aforementioned King/Queen's English - there are others.

However, such as Southern dialect might be incomprehensible to the uninitiated given the two examples, there are examples of the dominant media - particularly the northern or yankee media -as to the current butchery of the English language as spoken and written by the American population. Some of the ones I will mention are merely an indication of laziness among the media elitists; others are the product of political promotion of one party over another.

The first example I want to introduce is the phrase (or compound word) 'unquote'. The candidate said, quote, "Blah, blah, blah," unquote. Every time I hear an educated media person who projects the image that they are the ultimate authority on this subject or that, that theirs is the only true and exact source of vital information that you should ever need, and they use that term, I cringe. Any scintilla of credibility which the speaker or writer might have had with me (which is, I assure you, very little) is immediately eroded away with that statement. There is, in existence of the accepted grammar of the English language, no such word as unquote.

These persons attended major universities in many cases; studied journalism under the tutelage of esteemed and respected professors and have attained careers which cater to millions of citizens thirsty for information regarding Brittany Spears, Tom Cruise or Oprah and have a burning desire to know what new affliction or tragedy we may now lay at the feet of George W. Bush. And yet, they lose their god-like status by not knowing even the most basic usage of journalistic verbiage. Alas, one may unzip, unhook, unroll or even undress but there is no such thing as UNQUOTE!!!

Listen and learn, oh self-absorbed purveyors of political propaganda! The proper phrase is 'END QUOTE or CLOSE QUOTES! It is basic entry level Journalism 101.

Now, moving right along. Let's examine the word, 'gay'. How did 'queer' and 'homosexual' come to get replaced by the word 'gay'? When I was growing up and in my late teens, gay was associated with "don we now our gay apparel", or "gay Paree" or a "gay old time". Now, the word is immediately associated with persons who choose to have sexual preferences which do not correspond to the general population. This is the fault of a manipulative media which is more concerned about promoting politically correct terminologies and agendas than with choosing to remain true to standard and acceptable journalistic practices. The elite mainstream media is primarily concerned with altering and shifting viewpoints in the popular culture by methods of repetition and propaganda rather than delivering factual information in an accepted manner. And they have done such a magnificent job in this instance that the word itself will probably die out in its more familiar usage. When was the last time you heard anyone say, " We're going to Disney World in a few weeks. I think we'll have such a gay time!"? I rest my case, your Honor.

Next, the most annoying phrase that I hear on news programs is probably the most currently used one. How often have you heard the phrase, 'Democratic primary' in the last day or hour, for that matter? Democratic refers to a form of government; a democracy. It has nothing to do with a political party. Nothing...not one thing. Yet, it has become so pervasive among pundits, news outlets, and the general public that it has become completely accepted without question. How can there exist in our language both a Democratic party and a Democrat party?

There is, on the one hand, the Republicans, Republican party, the Republican minority, the Republican candidates. Notice the word does not change, no matter if used as a noun or as an adjective. Yet, on the other hand, there's the Democrats, the Democratic party, the Democratically controlled Congress, and the Democratic candidates. Now, my question is thus, how did a descriptive adjective which, for thousands of years since the dawn of Greek and Roman governments, has modified a type of government, get to the point of becoming an adjective for a political party? Is it the rats part of the word which bothers both the media and those identified with this party? Or is this a subtle manipulation of the language designed to subconsciously fool the public into believing that those of the party are more attuned to democracy than those evil Republicans?

Probably both are the answer. But what gets me is that no one - not an English professor, not a language professor, not a lexicographer, not a media person, not even a Republican has raised this question! It is a completely and totally incorrect use of the word and yet, we accept it without question. Even Bill O'Reilly, who is such a stickler for word usage and an expansive vocabulary, has fallen victim to the media conditioning and misuses the word daily without even a thought as to what he speaks.

There are so many others which have become so annoyingly ingrained in the culture from repetitious use by the media. Undocumented workers instead of illegal aliens. How do we know they are all working? If they aren't and they are robbing homes or convenience stores do they then become undocumented thieves? Sorry, they are all illegal aliens whether they are working, thieving, driving without a license or just living off the largess of the federal government. So, would this make me, a citizen, a documented worker? Doesn't the word take on a somewhat former USSR connotation? Such as 'the Worker's Party'?

African-Americans. Hispanic Americans. Asian Americans. Native Americans. Does this make me a European-American? Or, am I just an American. Why not Australian Americans, Russian Americans, Norwegian Americans? This is nothing more than racial categorization. I have never understood this one coming from a press that is the mouthpiece for the liberal left which touts that we should be a color blind society and preaches constantly to a white population that it is only they who can be intolerant or racist.

They have now embarked upon a new course of manipulation in the form of substituting the word 'progressive' for the word liberal. So, if liberals now become progressives, does that make conservatives 'regressives'?

We are being manipulated by a media which has an agenda. That agenda is a politically correct, socialistic one for a country of which they are ashamed. They despise all things military, all things conservative, all things Christian, all things free market, all things Constitutional. In other words, the media wants our traditions destroyed, our military gutted, our economy at other countries mercy; our status destroyed as a world superpower. They seem to want us dressed in leaves and riding bicycles to our jobs so as to diminish our carbon footprints. Each and every incremental detail with which our country and our traditions are undermined by them are designed to lead to that end. Even things as small as changing the language.

The thing which is not yet realized by these left leaning media idiots is that , when their goal has finally been achieved, that their only meaningful Constitutional right - The First Amendment - will also disappear. Then, someone else whom they have propagandized for the consumption of the masses will dictate what they print, broadcast or show. So be careful for what you wish. Study carefully the ends to which your agendas may lead, the unintended consequences of your political correctness and the promotions of your favorite leftists. You are not immune to the stifling regulations and the loss of freedoms which you wish on the rest of us.

The American Voter

Well, we've just passed the one year point to the next general presidential election. We have a field of Democrats who all want to do more for us and increase the power of the nanny state by instituting more cradle-to-grave entitlements and, on the other hand, we have a field of Republicans who are fighting to explain how they are more Republican than the other Republicans who are running.

All the candidates have one thing in common - the American voter decides who wins. Well, hopefully anyway; unless the American voter sleepwalks until next November! Also, I have a sneaky suspicion that this will probably go down as one of the most crooked voting periods in American history. There's way too much opportunity for cheating. But, I digress...

Most voters are impelled to vote based on a single reason. Generally speaking, just based on personal observation and experience, I'd say that the second largest slice of the pie chart would go to fear.

Think about your own situation. The last time you voted, did you vote to put in the best candidate or did you vote against someone whom you were afraid would: raise taxes, support George Bush, not give the local public school system every stinkin' thing they asked for 'for the children', or be just too controversial for your delicate tastes?

Now, I could list a whole litany of reasons to fear one candidate over another, but, you get the point.

I reckon the next largest slice of that chart would go to knowing or rather thinking you know the candidate. The familiarity syndrome - which is often linked to the incumbency syndrome - is one to think over as well. For example, how often have you heard, "I don't know much about X, but Y has been in there one term. He/she wasn't so bad, better a devil you know than a devil you don't know!"

Ain't that a killer! Forget finding out who they are, what they believe, their political philosophy, etc., hell, just vote for the other one that is 'Not too bad.' God forbid you would expend a minute particle of gray matter to actually get a little information. It's too much like work to track down a little more information on a candidate - where he/she stands morally, philosophically, politically? How many terms do you give 'nottoobad' before they become 'too bad' and tax you out of existence?

This one always gives me a similar sensation to kicking a chestnut burr barefoot. I've heard comments at local or state elections like, "Well , I don't know much about him but he goes to the same church Aunt Hazel goes to , I guess he'll be alright." That's about as irrational as voting for/against someone whom your daddy's half-neighbor went to the same school with ten years apart!

Thanks. It is so good to know that voters such as this so carefully weigh the future of their city/county/state/country as well as my future. Which leads me to the next one...

Appearance/personality: GodAlmighty folks! Since when did the future of Western Civilization get boiled down to who looks good in a suit/pantsuit or who has such a charming smile? When did the future of the greatest nation in western civilization boil down to a beauty contest? Miss America mentality. 'Nuff said.

Probably the one that annoys me the most as a Southerner is the party faithful. You see, after the Civil War, The War for State's Rights, seems like everybody in the South wanted to punish Abe Lincoln so they all became Democrats. That was okay, then. Southerners wanted to make a statement. They had followed the war and the politics up to, through and past the war and they chose to continue their defiance of Abe in this manner. But we are getting into the 5th and 6th generation after that period and too many of us are still registered as Democrats and the only reason you get from them is, " Well, my daddy was a Democrat and his daddy was a Democrat. If I was to register as a Republican, they'd roll over in their graves."

Hello! The platform of the Democrat party is only about 180 degrees from where it was during the War for States Rights!!! So let grandpa roll. We lost the war. Get over it! Sherman's dead, Abe's dead. Get a fix on your political philosophy and make a decision on your own before we become the new France. SOCIALISM is the new Democrat platform...Period!

Sexism. Now, it has been stated that white males are intimidated by Hillary because she is a strong, take charge kind of woman. Yeah, so was Margaret Thatcher, so is Condoleeza Rice, so is and Kay Bailey Hutchinson. It is the policies not the ovaries. Southern men married women who could plow, chop wood, and cook a full meal on a woodstove in the middle of August without air conditioning or electric fans long before MS. Rodham-Clinton came along. If MS. Rodham-Clinton is too strong, it is like the strong of coffee that has sat on the burner from 6:00 a.m. til noon. Unpalatable and bitter. Run a woman that is a southern momma and you'll find that issue melts away. And if any of you ladies are voting for Rodham-Clinton just because she's a woman, you're thinking with your reproductive organs which is what you accuse men of doing!

There are, of course, another half dozen reasons why people vote one way or another, such as the single issue fixation, i.e., taxes, abortion, 'free' health care, ad infinitum. Nevertheless, figure out into which category you fit and do a little thinking. If you aren't too busy watching reruns because of the writer's strike, get some information about where candidates stand. Get a grip on your political philosophy and make a written or a mental list of the likes and dislikes of a candidate you're leaning toward.

Do a little investigating. Virtually every community has both a local Democrat and Republican headquarters, or at least a local party chairman. Seek them out for more information on a particular candidate. Most national or state candidates have websites while they are running for office, check out the website. Read newspaper articles, magazines, talk to your neighbor, seek out alternative media but don't just rely on the network from which, "More Americans get their news than from any other source." They will only tell you what they want you to know!

A little homework won't kill you! It didn't send you to Forest Lawn in the sixth grade, it won't now. An ignorant voter is a detriment to himself, his children, his neighbor and his nation. Don't be an ignorant voter.

Introduction or What is Kudzu?

Greetings and Salutations from the South! Notice that the word 'South' is capitalized. It is a small indication of reverence for my region, my people and a vanishing way or life. It is not necessarily a reverence for my state, North Carolina, which is rapidly becoming the most liberal state south of the Mason-Dixon line. I am amazed at a state that could elect Senator Jesse Helms term after term and then turn around and give illegal aliens a drivers license. But that is another subject which will be addressed at a later time.

Kudzu is that wonderful Chinese import vine which threatened, at one time, to take over the entire Southland. Unfortunately, among other things, it is representative of the South. It grows along interstates, beside pastures, crawls up roadsigns to the point where the information on the sign, and indeed, the sign, post and all, is obliterated by the creeping vine and and the hand sized leaves.

It crawls up power poles, along power lines, covers billboards, suffocates trees and generally spreads to take over everything it possibly can. It is reported to incrementally grow up to two feet or more in a single day and is of no use for much of anything other than itself. Kinda reminds me of liberalism. But over and above that, Kudzu represents, for me the essence of the South. In most cases, farmers were introduced to the intrusive plant by local extension agents as being the cure all for building up their poor red soil.

My dad used to tell me about how the local agriculture extension agent sold the bad bill of goods to my grandpa. "Plant it, it'll build up your soil and prevent erosion. When you plow it under, it'll rot and compost and enrich the soil and your pasture land and garden will grow anything you plant."

Yeah. Sure. Grandpa believed him and planted it around the farm. It did nothing the man told him other than take over the place. My daddy spent the next 55 years trying to get rid of it. Another shining example of ' I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'

So, there you go. That's why I chose the name for this blog. I'll be giving you some perspectives from my point of view. I'm not necessarily the classic stereotype of southern 'baccer chawin' redneck. But you'll find out more information about me, my eclectic views and interests, my rearing in the South and my views on liberalism, the media and the sad state of politics in general as we go along.

Grandpa was deceived by the government, I've been deceived and ripped off by the government and I've been lied to for far too long by that sacrosanct branch of government...the liberal media. I intend to take no prisoners.

It ought to be good for a few idle moments. It might possibly help offset some of the pap you're fed from The New York Times, Charlie Gibson or the gang at M(ostly)S(ocialists)NBC.