Oh, That Rush! He's Such A *Kidder!*

[msbeadsley]

I have been trying so *hard* to stay out of this, I really have!

Regarding the grammatical structure of Rush Limbaugh's "sports 
commentation":

For the better part of two years (+/- 1993) I listened to his show 
every weekday (a coworker was dedicated); he is a brilliant 
entertainer, and I enjoyed that. Eventually I began to despise him: 
he is very good at fanning the flames of controversy in such a way 
that his fan base is able to say, "Hey, if you pay attention, you'll 
see that's not what he meant." That makes him a slimy git, IMO. (Now 
I support Al Franken.)

> > Haggridd wrote:
> > <long snip> This is as laughable-- and as sad-- as the 
> > Washington, D.C. city government official (an African-America, 
> > FWIW) who was forced to resign because he characterized a budget 
> > line item as "niggardly". His sin was not allowing for how the 
> > ignorant would misinterpret his statement as using the "N-word".

I can't even find a scrap of common etymology between "niggardly" and 
the word people were thinking of. As someone else has said, no, he 
wasn't African-American (and what does that matter anyway, although 
it would have), and he resigned in disgust, or in protest; it was his 
choice. (There was no "sin." This was not a moral issue whatsoever. 
Strictly politics. I know this was just a figure of speech, but...)

> > Don't the actual, real words and the meanings that are attached to
> > these words mean anything anymore, or is it only a matter of the
> > political spin?

Language is about communication; and, like it or not, usage drives 
meaning. (Look up "decimate"--it actually means reduce by 10% and 
comes from the practice in Imperial Rome of "removing" 1 of every 10 
soldiers in squads deemed to be performing under par. When's the last 
time you saw or heard "decimated" used in a way that didn't 
mean "devastated"? (And while the remaining Roman soldiers may have 
been devastated, that's not what's driving the use of "decimated" 
nowadays.)

If certain words or terms or "concepts" are leading to inflammation 
in the brains of a substantial percentage of listeners, then the 
speaker is failing to get the intended message across (unless the 
intent was to inflame--or to speak only to those who would not have 
that reaction, which is another way of being divisive).

I understand some frustration with the "political correction" of 
everything under the sun. Personally, while I understand that the 
pendulum has swung too far left for most people's comfort, I much 
prefer this state of affairs to the one which existed before it.

Tammy wrote:
> I think that it is a symptom of a society made up of ignorant 
> people with a painfully limited vocabulary and nearly no 
> understanding of syntax and grammar, since those were deemed, 
> about twenty-five to thirty years ago, to be 'detrimental to the 
> creative potential' of the children, and were accordingly dropped 
> from the curriculum of most schools in the US.

Ah, 'scuse me, but isn't this oversimplification? I don't think 
that "no understanding of syntax and grammar" is sufficient to make a 
person "ignorant." (My last formal education ended just about thirty 
years ago; most of my understanding of how words fit together is a 
result of autodidactic tendencies and has nothing to do 
with "curriculum.") There are many ways to be "ignorant," and many 
ways to be "educated."

I think that angst has far more to do with how people hear certain 
things than syntax and grammar ever could. I worked with pee-aitch-
dees (older than me, implying that their educations included syntax 
and grammar) in the field of civil rights; they were better than 
anyone else I'd ever met at finding offense where none was meant. 
Three things were in play, as far as I could tell: 1) They had very 
personal, PTSD-type reactions to certain issues; 2) They were 
absolutely determined that *awareness* of their sensitivity to these 
issues remain front and center in the dialogue; 3) They began to rely 
on the attention/awareness their sensitivity lent the dialogue and 
manipulated it in order to gain ground for their point of view as it 
related to the matter at hand. While all of that can add up to a 
gigantic pain in the ass, my personal take on the whole thing was 
that how they arrived at part #1 gave them the right to #2 and so on. 
(But then, I'm a flaming liberal with libertarian tendencies.)

I see political correctness as a process, and have faith that it's 
just a phase. Eventually, sufficient numbers of people will recognize 
that PC rhetoric has achieved all it can; at that point, it will 
start to be retired. (Some people make a career out of rabble-
rousing; they just want to keep the arguments hot and line their 
pockets. Eventually, those who care about actual outcomes will 
recognize them for the opportunists they are and find their own, 
closer to middle, ground.) Or perhaps I'm naive; but that's just me.

Sandy, hoping she's made at least a little bit of sense here