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.