Language and Learning

Ever heard of Fark.com? If not, go look at it now. No, seriously... right now. I'll wait.

Back? Good. Assuming most anyone who manages to find me amidst the damp and dusky labyrinth known as the Interwebs is fairly tech and net savvy, very few are going to be unfamiliar with Fark. Personally, it's the only message board type of site that I can enjoy. You get funny news, good discussion, and a whole lot of belly laugh inducing nonsense without all the drama and needless post count pomp that comes with other boards. Because of this, I've become quite a patron of Mr. Curtis and his little corner of cyberspace, and I post my opinions quite frequently. Recently, my posting led to an unexpected result-- a sponsorship to TotalFark, Fark's pay only subscription service. A fine man or woman (I'm betting woman) going by the moniker of Kteela paid five bucks-- or roughly a gallon of gas, if you're keep score at home-- to subscribe me to TotalFark based solely on one of my posts in a thread concerning the devolution of the English language due to the internet generation beginning to use "LOL," "U," ":)" and other such grammatical atrocities in academic papers.

In short, this is my public thank you to Kteela and my invitation to any and all to give Fark a look. Also, I will be reposting the message that earned me the TotalFark subscription below this text. I figure if it was worth five dollars to one person, it may well be worth at least five MINUTES to you. Enjoy!

(Original Thread)

Person to Whom I Was Responding:
Is it really an issue of intelligence? Or more the evolution of language? As we become an increasingly written-based communication society, isn't it natural that abbreviations and other means of shortening communication will become more popular?

My Post:
You can't be serious.

As it stands, English as a language is already becoming watered down to the point that its laughable, and we are NOT becoming an increasingly written based society, as the problem stems from the Interwebs Generation (my generation) refining ALL of their communication to reflect the way they SPEAK to each other, even if more and more of that communication is being read instead of heard. While it is expedient and acceptable for our common speech patterns to use a limited vocabulary and vernacular due to the relatively small need for complex ideas to be expressed during the "small talk" that tends to constitute our common exchanges throughout our day, it as another issue entirely when we as a people start limiting our ENTIRE vocabulary to the sort of bare bones words that we use during inconsequential discussion. It is precisely that watering down of our vocabulary that is taking place and, as a corollary, our children are beginning to lack the basic knowledge of our language necessary to form or understand complex ideas.

English, reading comprehension, and writing skills are not just subjects to study in school, they're essentially the key to all learning. The only way the human brain can accurately process and assimilate information is through the elaborate symbol system we've created and dubbed language. The more thoroughly a language is understood and the easier one can wield it, the easier one's mind will be able to understand and conquer new and difficult subjects or ideas. In short, the brain cannot think with words it doesn't understand.

Example:

Hreuthasad equals Ashterda over Yrutart. Understand? Of course not. Hreuthasad, Ashterda, and Yrutart have zero meaning to anyone but me. In this case I've arbitrarily decided that Hreuthasad means Velocity, Ashterda means Speed, and Yrutart means Time. Now you certainly understand. A rather cheap and weak example, perhaps, but its gets the point across-- without being equipped with the proper vocabulary, even the most basic of ideas cannot be grasped.

Should every person strive to use perfect grammar and punctuation in their online correspondence, while simultaneously going out of their way to use more accurate and less common words in order to flex their vocabulary? In my opinion, yes... if nothing else, it's good practice. But that's me, and it's up to the individual. But once that sort of nonchalant attitude begins to creep into academic and professional writing, and worst of all, to be expected and accepted by our educators, we should all be alarmed. For better or worse, the population of sites like Fark tend to be composed of intellectuals and fairly learned individuals, at least to the point of being able to grasp complex ideas. Therefore it's easy for us to assume that even the goofiest and most "Interweb" of our culture still have the tools to wield intelligence even if they're more likely to use acronyms instead of complex sentences to communicate. But pick a high school senior in your neighborhood at random and ask them what words like "Sardonic," "Innocuous," and "Bucolic" mean. Chances are you'll get a response of "Hell, I ain't no nerd or nothing." None of those are million dollar words. The point is driven even further home if you ask them about words that are common but rarely really understood, like "Empirical," "Systemic," or "Chronic." Such words are used and appear in papers, but scratch just beneath the surface and you'll find that an alarming number of our youth only repeat or plagiarize what they hear and see without fully understanding anything at all.

The English language has grown to this point due to the fact that it was left relatively unchecked in its infancy and allowed to expand. The idea that now, when the internet allows for information to be truly universally accessible, we should begin to accept a narrowing and reconfiguration of our language is as tragically comical as a high school student believing that a sideways smiley face has its place in academia.

Yea, boy!

April 13, 2008
Republicans talk about Iraq, Obama at N. Ky. dinner
(from Pol Watchers)

Republican U.S. Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning laid out their case for Republicans keeping control of the White House in the 2008 election during Northern Kentucky's 4th Congressional District Lincoln Day Dinner Saturday night.

...U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a "snake oil salesman."

He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with Obama.

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

Dearest Reader, might I ask, as you read through the above quotation, if you happen to see anything offensive, off color, or derogatory? I'm not asking if you agreed with the statement, as I'm sure quite a many of you did not. I'm asking if, regardless of your opinion on Mr. Obama's ability to lead our nation, something struck you as out of line concerning representative Davis's comments as to his opinion concerning the presidential hopeful?

To the (I trust) healthy majority of you who, like me, read the statement without skipping a beat, move to the head of the class. To the (distressingly high) number of you who reached for the ugly racism punch card in their back pocket, please see me after class.

To the majority of you still looking for what the minority (Blatant double entendre? I plead the fifth.) could possible find offensive, you aren't alone; I would never have noticed it if it weren't for the fact that what caught my attention was the first public mentioning I've ever heard of national security simulations, but we'll get to that later. That statement, having fondled and violated my curiosity quite intimately, set me about exhausting the cornucopia of resources at the disposal of my research team (yep, Google) in order to find more information concerning these simulations. A search conducted using the representative's exact words-- “highly classified national security simulation”-- however, turned up results with some rather unexpected headlines:

GOP Congressman Apologizes for Calling Obama 'Boy'

NKY.Com - Davis sorry for 'boy' remark

GOP Bigot Eruptions archive » Oliver Willis

Davis Apologizes For Calling Obama "Boy" – Horserace

They go on and on, but here's the idea... somehow, the word “boy” has become a slur. Oh, no one comes right out and says it that plainly; every commentator I've read mealy mouths their way around it by saying it's a Freudian slip, so on and so forth. But no matter how nice a silk hat they slip on the pig, it isn't going to sing in any other tune; “boy” has now taken on a racial connotation, and this damn foolishness is now legitimized by the fact that representative Davis has publicly apologized for his use of the word, stating ostensibly that he is guilty of wrongdoing.

Well, the NAACP and Reverend Jackson must be licking their chops. Did you ever see Sling Blade? Brilliant film, but the poor sods who were part of it had better brace for millions of dollars of litigation, as, given this precedent, it's now become the single most racist film ever produced. Why, it's a wonder we haven't started rounding up every copy of the movie in preparation for a public marshmallow roast given that it's rife with such offensive language as:

“You ought not talk that way. You just a boy.”

“I told you I ain't got no boy, now why don't you get on outta here and let me be. You ain't no kin to me.”

“Don't reckon you have to go with women to be a good daddy to a boy.”

and what may be the single most offensive piece of rhetoric ever uttered in the English language:

“Hey, Scooter, did I tell you the one about the two ol' boys pissing off a bridge? ...Well, there were these two ol' boys and they hung their peckers off a bridge to piss. One ol' boy from California, the other from Arkansas. The ol' boy from California says, "Boy, this water's cold", and the ol' boy from Arkansas says, "Yeah, and it's deep too". Get it?”

Sarcasm is the last refuge of the witless mind... I know, I know. But honestly, how can this be addressed without a tongue firmly in cheek and our contempt hidden behind a mirthful grin? To do it any other way makes one want to reach for their own “kaiser blade” and start hacking away at the paper walls we're putting up around us.

I come from redneck country-- Southern West Virginia, the birthing place of the term redneck, the home of the Hatfield-McCoy feud, et cetera ad nauseum. Also, the only state to have seceded from the South in order to fight against slavery during the American Civil War. Keep that in mind.

Around these here parts, it's not uncommon for someone, when addressed with a question or with their name, to say, “Yea, boy!” It's a cultural thing that's been around for as long as half the mountains, though certainly not just a West Virginia thing. For proof of this in pop culture, refer to the Hanks and Spielberg mini-series Band of Brothers, in which a soldier from Huntington, West Virgina by the name of Carwood Lipton uses the reply consistently. In all the 23 years I've been hearing and using the term-- to people of all colors, might I add-- never once has it been misconstrued to be a racial slur. Call me crazy, but I'm more inclined to believe that this has more to do with people having sense as opposed to everyone I know being so racially intolerant that the term has lost its meaning. It is with this in mind that I repeat a statement that can't be made enough-- if one looks hard enough, offense and racial connotation can be found in anything, from words like “snowflake” and “cornflake” to terms like “tar baby” and “black eye.” That sort of stupidity is fine by me, as at it tends to agitate people of all colors that I find to be neither my social or intellectual equal. However, when this stupidity is given credence and attention, it tends to agitate me, someone I think of quite fondly and wish nothing but peace and harmony.

Honestly, how far have we slipped when “boy” is yet another watch-word to keep under padlock when minorities are part of the conversation? Oh, make no mistake, “boy” is a word one uses when they feel they're addressing a lesser individual, but to assume that “lesser” automatically means lesser because of race is to make too much stew from one oyster. The entire fundamental basis of our political system rests on the fact that some of us are less qualified and capable to make decisions than those around us, and, to this point and despite its nearly innumerable faults, America seems to have done fairly well on that basis. Davis also refers to Obama as a snake-oil salesman, which, to my chagrin, is left out of the follow-up conversation entirely. Personally, I believe Obama is a snake-oil salesman, though one not quite as shifty and clueless as his opponent, Hilldog. In both cases, they're selling a lot of pretty words and ideas, promises and prophecies that they can't possibly hope to see put into action without financially and ethically crippling our nation... and it's winning them votes and support. But that and other truly political assertions are left out of the conversation, as there simply isn't time to report on the feasibility of their announced policies and to lynch (don't worry, I used it in reference to a white man, so it isn't offensive) Davis for using a word that every child learns by the age of five. But then again, that's the point, isn't it? So long as the dog and pony show keeps the audience looking at the corner of the stage, that audience is less likely to notice that they're running a circus without elephants.

Now, to more serious matters. Given Davis's statement about Obama's poor performance during a highly classified national security simulation, why in the HELL have I never heard of this before, and why, especially now, during an election cycle, are reviews and ratings of simulations not made public? I know they're “highly classified,” but I'm not talking about telling the world when and where they take place and their exact protocol of operation. What I do want to know is how well Obama and other politicians fair in these simulations, how well they handle the pressure, and the simulated results of their actions. For once it would give us voters a chance to look at something tangible on which to base our decision as to who is going to control (at least for now) the fate of the free world.

Is that too much to ask, or should we all just keep swallowing the snake oil these boys and girls are shilling?

Bigots Betrayed by Language

Commissioner warns of homosexual "social and sexual agenda"

(from www.tampabays10.com)

Tampa, Florida - Hillsborough County Commissioner Brian Blair is warning parents about the "Day of Silence."

The "Day of Silence" is an annual event created by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to bring attention to name-calling, bullying and harassment of gay students. On April 25th some students will wear buttons or t-shirts to to observe the day. Others may even put tape over their mouths.

In an e-mail from the District 6 Commissioner, Blair encourages parents to contact the Hillsborough County School District to object.

...Here are excerpts from the Brian Blair e-mail:

"I have always believed that all citizens are equal and should be treated accordingly. On the other hand, no group of citizens should be given government sanction and support to promote their social and sexual agenda upon the rest of us and especially, on our children."

"Considering the fact that the same school system does not want to allow just one Minute of Silence in the classroom for God, this is preposterous."

"Can you imagine asking for a 'Day of Cheer for Heterosexuality?' If no action is taken to change this policy, then perhaps it is time for another surgical strike from the majority; 'A Day of Abstention' from school participation might be considered."

Given that this year is an election year and the Lesser of Three Evils circus-like campaign juggernaut is currently running full steam ahead, it takes one hell of an effort to do or say anything more ignorant, pompous, or hypocritical than the never ending stream of miss-speaks and carved from their context sound bytes we're needle-fed every time we turn on a television. But we're in luck, friend. At least one man-- a fool named Brian Blair-- was courageous enough to pick up the gauntlet and betray his bigotry and blind, prejudiced fear out loud and proud where anyone with even an inkling of logic or decency rattling around in the dustbin they call a soul can see what a monomaniac he happens to be.

What is infinitely more disturbing is how many people believe that this sort of nonsense is not only understandable, but a victory for all “right thinking” and “God fearing” peoples in our country who happen to want to protect their children from the “disease” and “abomination” that is homosexuality. Not that they hate fudgepack... er, homosexuals or anything-- they don't have hate in their hearts!-- they're just trying to protect the common moral values as they were instilled in early America while protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Right. And every time I avoid walking down dark streets in bad neighborhoods in the middle of the night I'm just expressing my purely aesthetic preference for well lighted pavement over shadowed pavement and helping to protect America's fine traditions of illuminated sidewalks. It certainly has nothing to do with fear, believe you me!

Truthfully, I don't even know where to begin in addressing this... it puts me in mind of so many cross, star, and crescent shaped blades cutting deep into my sense of American pride and dignity-- which does one attempt to remove first? How about we begin with a simple question: when was the last time you, in passing, referred to something uncomfortable, unfair, or not to your taste or liking with a slang use of a word referring to homosexuals or homosexual practices? C'mon, be honest... it's not as if someone is being gay and watching over your shoulder to see what you're reading or hear what you say... or if they are, tell them to get lost and quit being such a fag about it.

Do you see my point? Unless you're a particularly lucky individual who has become immune to what is now a part of our cultural vernacular I doubt very seriously that the last sentence in the above paragraph struck you as offensive or out of the ordinary. A bit crass, perhaps, and poorly written most certainly (consider the source), but not any more offensive than someone yelling “CRAP!” or “HELLFIRE!” when they stub their toe or spill a glass of Rum and Coke Zero. It's become so deeply ingrained into our culture-- especially into my generation and the generations beneath me-- to refer to anything or anyone we consider to be wrong or out of place as “gay” that it's no longer a conscious thought and the two have simply become interchangeable in our lexicon. Now for the unpleasant fact so many of us like to ignore; if X is labeled Y, Y is therefore defined by X. No matter how many speeches about hope and diversity our elected scape goats offer up, no matter how many private conversations we have with acquaintances about our own feelings and “tolerance” towards homosexuality (“Why, my 5^th cousin on my aunt's side is a fa... er, homosexual, and my daughter brought her gay guy pal home to dinner the last time she was visiting from college! Of course I'M not gay, but...”), and no matter how many times we tune in to watch gay men attempt to make ugly men beautiful or teach walking oafs like myself how to dance without causing irreversible physiological damage to our partners, we're no more tolerant than our hate mongering ancestors. We simply allow our patterns of speech to betray our real “tolerance” right under our noses and belittle every homosexual in the process.

This draws me to the most astringent comment made by Mr. Blair:

"I have always believed that all citizens are equal and should be treated accordingly. On the other hand, no group of citizens should be given government sanction and support to promote their social and sexual agenda upon the rest of us and especially, on our children."

What in the name of the three Furies does Mr. Blair (and the rest of the bigots in our country-- fundamentalists, evangelicals, fear and hate mongers, and the just plain ignorant for that matter) call forcing a Judeo-Christian viewpoint onto youth by attempting to canalize into them the idea that there is only ONE proper code of conduct in terms of personal sexuality and by forbidding them the opportunity to express their disgust over the denigration of homosexuals that has become almost irreversibly engendered into our language OTHER than a government sanctioned attempt to “promote their social and sexual agenda upon the rest of us and especially, on our children?” I'm sure if called to task for this blatant double standard the charlatan Blair would simply hide behind the “sanctity of marriage” and “inherent American values” argument until the trumpets blew and it was time for the “roll call up yonder.”

What only compounds this garbage is the man simultaneously played the they-took-God-out-of-our-schools card amidst his other nonsense:

"Considering the fact that the same school system does not want to allow just one Minute of Silence in the classroom for God, this is preposterous.”

If any credit is due to this pharisee it is earned by the fact that he certainly knows from what base his support will come-- white light will invariably flow straight out of ministries and tabernacles all across the land and ring his head with a shiny little halo. All the while, the children in his charge are hearing his message loud and clear-- neither he nor God will tolerate the gay community any more than they're forced to, nor will they even APPEAR to defend such abominable lifestyles as just as acceptable as “right thinking” American sexual protocol... so stop being a queer-bait who wants to stand up for fags!

I am not any more immune to this social sickness than my contemporaries-- I still catch myself using the word “gay” for no good reason when I'm addressing a situation I find unacceptable. But I have chosen to remain immune to the common knowledge that such behavior is acceptable and I attempt to change it every day I remain breathing. I am not a parent, nor, though I have some very limited experience in the challenges of rearing and teaching young children about values and ethics, can I claim to have an even semi-comprehensive understanding of the multitude of challenges and threats a parent must face in caring for a child. However, I know one thing-- if I'm lucky enough to become a parent or a personal mentor to a young child, my child or charge will not be taught to denigrate ANY sexual orientation for any reason or in any context, and if I ever receive an email that even remotely resembles Mr. Blair's, I'll certainly pay attention to a small portion of it; the portion about contacting the local school district... though I have serious doubts that any other Brian Blair's in this world will much like what I have to say about their blatant attempt to “promote their social and sexual agenda upon the rest of us and especially, on our children,” as “pharisee” and “bigot” will be among the kindest words I will use.

--

On a happier note that, I can only hope, will help sop up the anger this entry is hemorrhaging out onto your desk or lap, I've run across a story that is the polar opposite of the one cited above:

South principal defends teacher's sexuality remarks
Some parents contend talk to students went too far
(from www.leadertelegram.com)

By Christena T. O'Brien
Leader-Telegram staff

Throughout her tenure as a South Middle School health teacher, Stephanie Rowe has faced repeated questions from students about her sexual orientation during study of the human growth and development portion of her class.

Year after year, Rowe chose not to answer the question, but last week she decided to tell about 125 students she was gay.

"One of the things she promotes with her students is honesty ... and she felt that she should model that for them and respectfully so," said Principal John Wallace, who spoke to Rowe before she revealed her sexual orientation to students on April 2.

"Rather than wait for the question she decided she'd announce it so her students knew and they could move on," Wallace said Tuesday. "Knowing her as I do, I knew she'd handle it well."

Given all that I've already written on the subject, I feel no need to elaborate as to why this story turns my frown upside down, nor do I feel a need to comment as to why the subtitle-- Some parents contend talk to students went too far-- is just as ridiculous as Brian Blair's damnfoolishness. This story speaks for itself, so I'll make no attempt to try and scream over it.

However, I will offer up my unconditional applause to the courageous educator in question, Stephanie Rowe, and to South Middle School Principal, John Wallace. I can only hope that you'll do the same.

A Modest Proposal: No Confidence

The subject of politics can be quite a touchy one if one makes the mistake of bringing it up for discussion at an inopportune time, at an inopportune location, or with a person whom has the (quite healthy) belief that such matters should be reserved for personal reflection or, at most, discussion amongst one's closest acquaintances. However, to the world's chagrin and possible disgust, there exists a certain number of nosey individuals, such as myself, that share the fetish of enjoying open and public discussion of political thought and belief. So, by indulging this fetish, I've managed to survey enough people to competently make the assertion that most if not ALL of those who intend to vote in the coming election are facing a very real dilemma- there simply isn't a single candidate left standing (and damn few otherwise) that anyone, at least in my experience, feels is worth voting for.

As was so well displayed by the kings of American satire and commentary, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, it is all but a forgone conclusion that nearly any election can be said to be a choice between a douche bag and a turd sandwich-- the lesser of two evils conundrum. This year, however, appears to be different, in that we seem to be faced with a choice between three, soon to be two, equally rancid, stinky, disease infested piles of scatological sampling. I've yet to meet a single individual-- be they so far left that they shat out rubles, so far right that they sleep on a mattress stuffed with gold bullion and torn pages from the book of Revelation, so moderate that they have a pro-choice sticker plastered on the outside of their H2 Hummer, or so apathetic that they've applied for Canadian citizenship-- that can point to either The Great Black Hope, Mrs. Duck and Cover, or G.I. John and say, “THAT is my candidate.”

To that end, I submit to you one of many modest proposals I have in mind in order to rectify some of our problems: In every booth, on every touchscreen, and on every paper ballot used in the coming election, include an option labeled “No Confidence.”

The outline of my proposition is quite simple; should we, as Americans, be faced with a situation where there isn't a single candidate available that we believe would act in the best interest of our country to the extent that we could vote for them without ethical qualm, we simply vote No Confidence. If, for any reason, more than one third of the total votes tallied nationwide is a No Confidence vote, the election is rendered null and void. The candidates who ran and received the vote of No Confidence are forever barred from holding any public office in any capacity. The incumbent president, if he or she was one of the candidates, remains in office until the end of their term and is THEN barred from holding any future public office, or if the incumbent president was not up for re-election, they step down at the time when the new president would have been sworn in, relinquishing temporary veto-power (but no other presidential powers) to the next highest non-candidate in the presidential succession while simultaneously placing temporarily upon the Secretary of Defense the title and responsibility of Commander and Chief of the armed forces. In the mean time, a repeat of the primary vote is to take place, allowing the American people to select a more worthy group of candidates that will then be up for election.

Obviously, there would need to be more stipulations for my proposal to be fully fleshed out, many of which I already have in mind, but I don't wish to bore you with outlining a plan of action that, despite its wisdom, is likely to never receive any consideration. In my mind, there are very few negatives to implementing this policy while the positives are innumerable. The ability to enact and conduct warfare will not have been interrupted, nor will the power structure of our three branches have been noticeably disrupted as the checks and balances of our government remain fully in effect. Yet we, as the American people, will finally have been given the option to completely buck the system, throw up our hands and say, “Enough is enough,” and turn the repetitive political trash and nonsense out from public office for good. We, as the people around whom the constitution and Bill of Rights were designed to empower, will finally have the ability to enforce our mandates and our trust, and to peaceably exert our power and our will when our government has gotten out control.

Hell, why stop with just the Presidential election? Let this policy apply to EVERY election in every corner of our land, from City Dog Catcher to State Legislature, from Sheriff to the election of our voices in congress. And why allow this policy to only be enacted during elections? Why not allow, at any time and for any reason, the constituency which any public political figure represents to file a petition, requiring “X” amounts of votes to enact a vote of no confidence, and if more than half (even if by just one vote) of a given politician's represented populace show that they have lost faith in whom they elected, that person is removed from office and may never again hold any position whatsoever? To adopt this system would guarantee something, to my knowledge, not only the American people but all the civilized peoples in all of history have never had-- the ability to question, scrutinize, and eventually punish or reward any decision made be their representatives at any given moment without the use of violence, and with a government and national mandate. In all cases, the same basic principle applies-- a vote of no confidence guarantees that whomever is turned out of office will never be afforded the opportunity to abuse the trust of the people. This will begin the process of weeding the trash, and, one can only hope, eventually lead to representatives that truly reflect the people that elect them.

Perhaps this isn't such a modest proposal... in fact, I all but shouted it down into writing. This is an immodest proposal, a proposal that I yell proudly, and can only hope is heard. These words will never be heeded, however, as the lead to the end that politicians fear the most-- it slips the noose from the neck of the voters and onto the neck of the elected, allowing us to keep them upright with a simple tug from the gallows.

Realistic? Perhaps not... but something has to be done. How can one reach any other conclusion when we can say that electing our officials is tantamount to choosing between a douche bag and a turd sandwich, and it's considered a joke and not a travesty?

EDIT - April 7th 2008: I recently ran across what appears to be a completely kosher online database of every South Park episode. Sweet, huh? At any rate, given that I cited an episode of South Park in this article, I can't see why linking to it wouldn't be appropriate.

http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/808/Douche-and-Turd.html