The Verbal Intelligence of a Trained Parrot

While I appreciate the effort my health plan providers make to keep me informed of benefits, I do with they’d hire better-trained parrots to write the notices.

“Please note that all pharmacies may not be providing… “

Really? “[A]ll pharmacies” followed by “may not”? Nonsensical*, but if the parrot were better-trained, it might have pecked out,

“Please note that not all pharmacies may be providing… “

…although the passive voice construction in this case is an abomination. A better construction altogether would have helped clarity and, probably, have avoided mocking, but then,

“For additional information about this benefit, please see the frequently asked questions on the reverse side of this letter,” would have assured loud guffaws and raucous mocking anyway. The “reverse side of this letter” was, of course, blank.

Idiots.


*Semantics (meaning) is not as sensitive to syntax in English as in some languages, but this is one of a significant class of examples where it is.

Anyone want to check my math?

Obamanoids–dupes in general, the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind (A.K.A. “Bylines for Barry”), The Zero’s campaign mouthpieces (TOTUS, Cwazy UNka Joe and all the other usual suspects) and the whole gaggle of leftard loons have invested tons of disingenuity into the meme that Romney doesn’t pay his “fair share” of taxes. Their argument, such as it is, is that his nominal 14-15% income tax rate on his investment income–the sum total of his income–is “less” than the average person pays. Leaving aside the 47% who receive more in benefits from the “feddle gummint” than they pay in taxes, if they pay any income taxes at all, what about that claim?

The corporations Romney receives his investment income have to make a profit. Those profits are distributed after taxes and reinvestment in the business to investors. So, say a company makes $100 in before tax profits. Yeh, yeh, a ridiculously small amount, but one that makes for easy numbers. After paying JUST the federal corporate income taxes, that number is reduced to about $72 available to return to investors who are then taxed a nominal 15% of that. So, assume only one investor, for simplicity. That investor would then receive about $61. All told, the “feddle gummint” has just gobbled up 39% of the income.

Average Joes don’t pay that sort of income tax rate, unless they’re too stupid to be able to use Turbotax and misfigure everything on their own. (ABOVE average–in income and privilege–“Timothys” however Do use Turbotax and fail to properly pay their federal income taxes for years, but the law only applies to the little people.)

“Eye Candy” at “The View”?

So, The Zero appeared on “The View” instead of, oh, I dunno, doing his job, and offered, “I’ve been told I’m just eye candy here.”

I’ve seen better:

Come one! Somebody tell me that’s racist.

On Being Ticked Off with Ann Coulter

*sigh* Why does she just HAVE to say it better than I can? Why? *mutter, mutter-gripe-complain*

At a private gathering, Romney told donors that Obama had a lock on the 47 percent of voters “who pay no income tax” and “believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.” This was deeply offensive to people who pay no income tax and believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.

Irony? We Gots Some

In the kingdom of the blind, the ironic one-eyed man will hand out printed notes showing people how to get their government swag…

Your contributions?

Romney’s 47% “Gaffe”? Notsomuch.

“It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation,” [Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager] wrote.

How about all those “flyover” bitter clingers, Mr. President? Could it be that they don’t belong so much to the 47% receiving government largesse? Hmmm?

Contra Dhimmicraps’ glee in thinking that Romney’s recent “47%” comment is a gaffe, consider:

The Democrats think Romney just self-destructed by pointing out, um, THEIR ENTIRE STRATEGY

“Please, please, PLEASE, Br’er Dhimmicrap, do throw Br’er Romney into that briar patch!”

Just One–of Many–of the Dangers of Democracy

[N.B. I’ve seen ironically elitist criticism of José Ortega y Gasset for being an elitist. Most folks who criticize him for noting some of the serious problems that must necessarily ensue from allowing democratic memes too much cultural influence are pseudo-intellectual snobs who don’t even bother–or are unable–to read and grasp some of the core ideas in his most scathing rebuke of “Mass Man” in “The Revolt of the Masses”. Here, I am not going to make direct reference to Ortega, but just note that his articulations of issues do inform what I want to try to convey here, in some very small part. The deficiencies in this blogpost shouldn’t be attributed to his influence though. No, those deficiencies are all mine.]


 

 

 
Democracy as a political system has its own problems. One, of course, is that time worn warning that once some of the People discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public purse, corruption inevitably ensues, and the road to the failure of democracy as a political system is not long following. But societal effects can be harmful, too. When popular culture is ever more democratized, the process of dumbing down society to the lowest common denominator becomes a process of self-perpetuating debasement.

Let me illustrate this debasement using a very, very limited example which the reader may use to draw his own examples. Lexicographers eventually bow to even the basest misuses of words and finally legitimize the misuse by denoting it in a dictionary entry. Here is one such example: “healthy”. “Healthy” was once a word–and still is among literate persons–with a primary denotation of an organism that enjoyed good (vigorous, robust) health. Its misuse for years has now brought it to the point where is is used to refer to both live and dead materials that may promote (often only in the minds of the promoters) good health. Whereas once, in referring to the health of an organism, it referred primarily to the state of being or condition of something that was alive, now it may refer to some inanimate material to be consumed or even inanimate object designed to act upon or be used by some animate being to promote that being’s health. Once, the word used to denote that latter meaning was “healthful” and so the two words provided useful information in distinction to each other when used. Not so nowadays.

Losing useful distinctions means losing useful meanings, and language is first and foremost about conveying meaning (here I usually insert my rant about those utter idiots who blather about semantics as though distinctions in meanings were… meaningless, useless twaddle, but I am to tired to the bone to deal with useless idiots right now), and anything that broadens distinctions to the point of removing useful distinctions dumbs down the exchange of meaning.

Every time someone is allowed to misuse a word without being corrected, allowed to spread its misuse, society becomes stupider. And that, dear reader, is especially dangerous in a society governed via any elements of democracy. People who do not even have the words to express themselves with clear and full meaning will not be able to rule themselves wisely… or chose wisely when selecting/electing those they represent.

Oh, this thing with dumbed down language as a result of validation of misused is just the tip of the iceberg, as it were, that wrecks overly-democratic societies. Largely, it’s not so much the misuse of words that destroys communication but the very democratic tendency to accept that just because many people do such and so then that makes such and so acceptable. (Didn’t your mother ever warn you about jumping off a cliff just because “ALL” your friends were doing so? Hmmm?)

This dumb-down spiral applies all across the board: clothing fads that make slovenly (or slutty or stupid… or slutty and stupid and slovenly *sigh*) attire normative, popular entertainment–whether it be the mindless circuses of spectator sports, the pernicious drivel of TV and movies or the musicless grunts and moans and banging around of most contemporary fake music–the acceptance of stupid expressions of stupid people as (graphic) “art”: all this and more works to debase society in a society that values the opinions of stupid and subliterate people as highly–and in many cases nowadays more highly–as someone who can actually tell the difference between a well-written book and what Holly Lisle calls “Suckitudinous” writing–or even just badly-written schlock; someone who can actually hear the difference between music and… top 40 crap, someone who has actually read The Founders and can tell when such as Nancy Pelosi is blowing smoke up folks’ skirts defending unconstitutional legislation as a legitimate exercise of governmental authority, etc.

Yes, it does make a difference that fewer and fewer people in our society can discriminate between classes of objects, events, statements… or even know that there can be good things about discrimination.

I could have used more politically charged examples than the less than life-threatening “healthy” word misuse, but discussing the misuse (and even misunderstanding by subliterate morons) of “racist”–for example–probably would have resulted in some SPAM comments accusing me of racism. Oops. *heh*

DGARA. Accuse away. 😉

Continue reading “Just One–of Many–of the Dangers of Democracy”